Karen Read's legal team dropped a bombshell this week. Here's what it means
The Karen Read case took yet another turn on Monday, when her lawyer announced in court that she intends to file suit against the Massachusetts State Police and several witnesses who testified against her at her criminal trials.
It was not an entirely unexpected turn, as speculation about a similar action had run rampant since Read's June 18 acquittal . But the manner in which Read is seeking to bring those claims was a surprise — she is set to ask a judge to allow her to add 10 defendants to the wrongful death lawsuit filed against her by the family of her boyfriend, John O'Keefe.
Judge Daniel O'Shea did not rule on the request, noting that Read's lawyers had not yet filed any motion. He dubbed it a "relatively novel [theory]."
"It's a big deal," he said.
Who does Read want to sue?
Damon Seligson, an attorney representing Read in the civil case, said Monday that she intends to bring claims against 10 defendants. They are:
-
Massachusetts State Police
-
Det Lt. Brian Tully
-
Sgt. Yuriy Bukhenik
-
Former trooper Michael Proctor
-
Brian Albert
-
Nicole Albert
-
Jennifer McCabe
-
Matthew McCabe
-
Brian Higgins
-
The Town of Canton
Tully is the former supervisor of the State Police Detective Unit assigned to the Norfolk County District Attorney's office. He served in that role during the investigation into O'Keefe's death, which led to the charges against Read.
Bukhenik and Proctor handled the bulk of the investigation into Read as the State Police supervisor and trooper on duty on Jan. 29, 2022, when O'Keefe died. Proctor was fired from the State Police over his conduct in the investigation, a decision he is appealing.
The Alberts owned the home at 34 Fairview Road in Canton, where O'Keefe was found that morning. They are related to the McCabes — Nicole Albert and Jennifer McCabe are sisters. Read and her defense have long accused the two families of conspiring to cover up O'Keefe's death inside the home and pinning the blame on Read. Nicole Albert's husband, Brian, was a Boston police officer at the time.
Brian Higgins was at 34 Fairview Road the night O'Keefe died, and had exchanged a series of flirtatious text messages with Read in the weeks leading up to O'Keefe's death. Higgins is a federal agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
What are the claims?
Read intends to claim that Proctor, Tully and Bukhenik violated her civil rights and engaged in a civil conspiracy. She also intends to bring claims of negligent training, supervision and retention against the Massachusetts State Police.
The claims against the Alberts, McCabes and Higgins similarly would be civil conspiracy and violation of civil rights. The claim against the town, through its police department, would be negligent failure to secure the garage at 34 Fairview Road and the sallyport at the police station.
"We would be alleging that the individuals in the house diverted attention away from themselves towards Ms. Read that law enforcement, then acting on that diverted attention away from her, ... collectively conspired to ensure that what happened in the house was not explored and investigated," Seligson said, noting that those in the house were either police themselves or well-connected in law enforcement.
"Instead, Ms. Read was wrongfully targeted, maliciously prosecuted, made to face two criminal trials for the death of John O'Keefe, and is now facing allegations of wrongful death, all stemming from the same claims," he continued.
Essentially, instead of suing those individuals in a separate case that would involve separate evidence and depositions, Read's lawyers want to combine any legal action concerning her case into one mammoth lawsuit with five plaintiffs and 13 defendants.
Will she actually be allowed to do this?
Attorney Howard Friedman , a Brookline-based lawyer who handles civil rights cases, told MassLive that Read's lawyers may have some additional homework to do.
"Some of the things they said don't make any sense to me as a civil rights litigator," he said.
On their face, the claims Read's team intends to pursue appear better suited for a lawsuit filed in federal court under 42 U.S. Code § 1983, according to Friedman. It's a distinction a lawyer for the O'Keefe family noted in court Monday.
In a landmark Section 1983 case known as Monroe v. Pape , the Supreme Court found that individuals acting "under color of law" could be sued for damages for denying the constitutional rights of individuals, yet municipalities could not be liable under the Civil Rights Act.
"Section 1983 actions, I believe, your honor, would have to go up through the federal court," said Attorney Marc Diller. "We're not seeking to have this case removed in federal court. We started in the state court. We're intending to move forward in the state court. We would like to have a state court ... jury decide this case."
If Read's team moves forward, any of the new defendants she sues could file a notice of removal in federal court, which would likely lead to the suit being moved there.
There are more issues with the plan than just procedure, Friedman explained.
Individuals can't sue the State Police, and witnesses can't be sued for their testimony at a trial, he said.
"I don't know of any state civil rights claim that would allow you to sue the State Police as an entity," Friedman said.
At the state level, Read's civil rights claims against the witnesses also face an uphill battle. She would have to sue alleging that they committed the violation by "threats, intimidation or coercion," Friedman explained.
As the law has been interpreted, it would be difficult to show that the McCabes and Alberts violated Read's civil rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion, he said.
Jack Lu, a retired Superior Court judge, said it was his view that claims that someone else caused Read to be prosecuted unfairly should be brought as part of a different case, not the same one.
Why Read's lawyers say she should be allowed to bring this as one case
Seligson, the attorney who appears to be heading up the civil team, described the proposal as an effort to "synthesize the process and conserve resources [and] attain judicial economy."
"To have two depositions ... of parties in two separate cases where we can have one, and the claims could proceed at the same time just seems to make judicial sense. That's why we're raising it," he continued.
Alan Jackson, the lawyer who headed Read's criminal defense, sang a similar tune outside the courthouse.
"It's a matter of judicial economy," he said. "All the same individuals are involved."
Even if Read isn't allowed to add the 10 parties as defendants to the suit, she intends to present an affirmative defense in the case — essentially what she did at her criminal trials. As part of that defense, Read would be required to make some showing that the other people she is accusing were actually involved.
That means, inevitably, the parties she intends to sue will wind up in the case one way or another, her lawyers say.
More about the case
Read the original article on MassLive . Add MassLive as a Preferred Source by clicking here .
