Karen Read trial and the demonstrators: What the court filing says

Karen Read’s supporters are fighting a move to limit how and where they can demonstrate during her upcoming murder trial.

Read has been charged with second-degree murder in connection with the death of Braintree native and Boston police Officer John O'Keefe, 46, her boyfriend at the time.

A lawyer working on their behalf made good on a promise on Tuesday to file a motion on their behalf to prevent the state from being allowed to impose a 500-foot no-protest area around the courthouse grounds.

The state is also seeking to ban signs and clothing related to the trial outside and inside the courthouse when Read’s trial begins April 16.

A hearing to discuss the state's motion scheduled before the counter-filing is scheduled for Wednesday, April 4.

Who is the lawyer representing the demonstrators?

First Amendment rights attorney Marc Randazza runs the national Randazza Legal Group. His nearest local office to the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham is in Gloucester.

In his 21-page motion to intervene filing submitted April 2, Randazza said demonstrators have a First Amendment right to gather peacefully outside.

He said the people he is representing “have no intent to interfere with anyone, to obstruct anyone, nor to impede anyone. But they do intend to engage in core First Amendment activity – speech on a matter of public concern in a traditional public forum,” he said in the filing.

He chided the state’s claim of trying to ensure both Read and prosecutors’ right to a fair trial by limiting what activities can occur outside the courthouse and what prospective jurors might see.

“The Commonwealth seeks to bind and gag Lady Liberty and must not be permitted to do so without opposition,” he wrote. “Defendant Read should not be asked to defend herself and the rights of 7 million Massachusetts citizens at the same time.”

Who is attorney Marc Randazza representing?

The motion was filed on behalf of four people who intend to demonstrate outside the courthouse during the trial. Randazza said the four have standing in the case as they would be directly affected by the ruling.

One of plaintiff’s, Paul Cristoforo, reached out to Randazza on X, formerly Twitter, after Randazza agreed with a post that said easy access should be maintained for people entering the courthouse and that potential jurors should be given a separate protected entry way.

“That’s how I see it and that’s what I would argue if anybody asked me to,” he said.

A Karen Read refresher

Read, 43, is accused of backing into O'Keete with her SUV outside a Canton home belonging to another Boston police officer and leaving him in the snow to die two years ago.

The couple had been drinking and had been seen arguing before Read dropped O'Keefe off at the home during a blizzard in the early hours of Jan. 29, 2022.

Prosecutors allege Read, of Mansfield, struck O'Keefe while backing out of the driveway before returning home. She has pleaded not guilty to a charge of second-degree murder.

O'Keefe was found dead in the home's driveway several hours later.

Turtleboy triggers lawyers' interest in Read case

Randazza said on X that he became interested in the case after Aidan Kearney, a Holden-based blogger known as “Turtleboy” online, was charged with over a dozen counts of witness intimidation in connection with his advocacy of Read’s innocence.

Kearney helped launch the "free Karen Read" movement, which suggests a large-scale cover-up of O'Keefe's death that has been pinned on Read.

Kearney spent 60 days in jail following a domestic claim made against him, which a judge said violated his conditions of release on the witness intimidation charges. He has since been released.

The Norfolk County District Attorney’s office, which is prosecuting the case, said it has evidence Kearney and Read were in far more frequent contact than either has admitted.

Randazza included his concerns over Keaney’s treatment in the filing.

“The Commonwealth is prosecuting journalists and demonstrators alike – in its quest to act without criticism,” he said in the motion.

Randazza further defended his clients.

“They do not intend to, nor should they be permitted to, engage in legally obscene demonstration, nor true threats, nor incitement to violence, nor true fighting words, to the extent that such doctrine still exists,” he said.

Finding a compromise

Randazza said the buffer zone, if allowed, would create a “’free speech desert’ 500 feet in all directions from the courthouse.”

He said his clients would be satisfied with rules tailored to the case, such as only requiring a buffer during the jury selection process, although he added such a move would “still likely chafe the Constitution.”

He also suggested the jury be brought in through the back entrance to the courthouse during the trial and demonstrators could be banned from that entrance by 25 feet.

"Any other concerns about tainting the jury or witnesses should be limited to actual contact with jurors or witnesses," he said in the filing.

Potential jurors likely aware of charges against Read

“It is rare that judges and prospective jurors are ignorant of high-profile matters and, frankly, one would hardly think a jury of one’s peers – 17 – includes those who are out of touch with society,” Randazzo said in the filing. “It will be a challenge to find jurors who are ignorant enough about this trial to serve on its jury

Randazza made a point in the filing to note the value of demonstrations.

“Demonstrations show that our system is open and fair,” he said in the filing. “Lockdowns and bans show that we have something to fear.

This article originally appeared on The Patriot Ledger: Karen Read supporters hire lawyer: What he says about First Amendment