Karen Read trial ‘buffer zone’ essential to delivering justice, fairness
Zealots who swear they know the Truth (with a capital T) behind the murder prosecution of Karen Read in the death of her Boston police boyfriend John O’Keefe are, of course, entitled to their opinion. What they aren’t entitled to is to disrupt a court proceeding or intimidate the jurors and witnesses who will be a part of that pending trial. Justice and fairness demand nothing less. And so the presiding judge in the trial, Beverly Cannone, a veteran jurist with 15 years on the bench, came up with a Solomonic solution aimed at allowing demonstrators to exercise their First Amendment rights while preserving Read’s right to a fair trial by a jury untainted by having to run a daily gantlet of sign-wielding protesters. And while in this case the protesters are almost entirely Read supporters, the principle still holds — the court has an obligation to, as Cannone put it, “reduce the risk of exposing witnesses or jurors in this case to such outside influences.”
The Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office had asked the judge to impose a 500-foot buffer zone around the courthouse complex. Cannone opted for a 200-foot zone, noting in her pretrial order, “In this case, it is well documented that protesters have shouted at witnesses and confronted family members of the victim. Individuals have also taken to displaying materials which may or may not be introduced into evidence during trial, and airing their opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant on their clothing or on signage.”
The judge’s imposed buffer zone includes the courthouse, the nearby Norfolk County Registry of Deeds building, and a parking lot in the complex, which means in most cases demonstrators will have to do their thing across the street from the complex. The judge also prohibited demonstrators from using “audio enhancing devices” like bullhorns and from wearing “buttons, photographs, clothing, or insignia” related to the case inside the courthouse.
In that same order she prohibited law enforcement officers attending the trial or testifying at it from wearing their uniforms. There will be no blue line in the seats in the Dedham courtroom.
In a decision issued April 12, Supreme Judicial Court Justice Serge Georges Jr. said, “The buffer zone order only minimally burdens the petitioners’ speech. It merely moves demonstrations 200 feet from the courthouse, a modest distance that can be traversed in less than a minute.”
He also noted, “The buffer zone order is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, namely, the integrity and fairness of the defendant’s trial. Demonstrations near the courthouse threaten this interest by exposing witnesses and jurors to intimidation and harassment, undermining their ability to testify or to serve without fear of reprisal.”
Now the Read fan club is not a group that will retreat without a fight, and so the original petitioners, including the Freedom to Protest Coalition, filed an appeal to have the case heard by the full bench of the SJC — an appeal the SJC, by the way, is under no obligation to grant.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts weighed in with a friend of the court brief this week, raising the idea that “a more carefully tailored order … for instance preventing demonstrations a) within a certain number of feet of certain entry ways to be used by witnesses or potential jurors, b) during certain days or hours, c) of more than a certain decibel level, or d) that threaten or harass witnesses or potential jurors” might suffice.
That may be more complex than necessary. Buffer zones, measured in feet, that are easy to understand and enforce are a common policy around voting sites, to protect voters from just the kind of intimidation and harassment Cannone wants to prevent in the Read trial.
As for the right of Karen Read supporters to exercise their First Amendment rights, Justice Georges in his decision found, “The buffer zone order also contains no restriction whatsoever on other channels of communication, such as private conversations, letters to the editor, and social media, by which they may express their views about the defendant’s case.”
Addressing prospective jurors Tuesday, Cannone got it right when she said, “People outside of this building have rights, and we know that they have voices, but this criminal trial will be decided by an independent jury, free from outside interference, based only upon the evidence presented in this courtroom and the law.”
Making sure that happens won’t be easy — even with that modest buffer zone. But the buffer zone is a good start.