Norfolk Superior Court docket Choose Beverly Cannone has been sued for reinstating a buffer zone, limiting Karen Learn supporters from demonstrating exterior the Dedham courthouse, through the contentious homicide trial.
4 Massachusetts residents are behind a grievance filed in federal courtroom arguing that their protests of Cannone’s dealing with of the Learn case have been “peaceful, lawful, and entirely protected by the First Amendment.”
They’re looking for to dam enforcement of the buffer zone order and restore their proper to protest.
Cannone accepted a request final week from the prosecution {that a} buffer zone be reinstated for Learn’s second homicide trial, retaining supporters and opponents a minimum of 200 toes away from the courthouse through the trial.
The Norfolk County choose prolonged the restricted space additional for the retrial — which began Tuesday with two jurors being chosen out of the primary candidate pool — previous the place supporters typically gathered through the first trial final yr.
Plaintiffs Jason Grant, Allison Taggart, Lisa Peterson and Samantha Lyons additionally record the Massachusetts trial courtroom, Massachusetts State Police, Dedham Police Division and Norfolk County District Lawyer Michael Morrissey as defendants.
The grievance highlights an instance of how Grant “peacefully demonstrated on the sidewalk next to the courthouse holding signs reading ‘Judge Bev is Conflicted’ and ‘Bev’s Court is a Clownshow.’”
“There were no disturbances, incidents, nor interference with any of the trials taking place,” the grievance states, “but Judge Cannone was apparently embarrassed and annoyed by people protesting against her.”
Cannone on Tuesday careworn to the primary spherical of potential jurors that irrespective of how loud or persistent exterior voices — whether or not the media, social media or bodily protesters exterior — this case is to be determined “based only upon the evidence in this courtroom and the law … it is just that simple and that important.”
“While public comment will likely continue, the rule of law will be upheld,” she mentioned.
Nicely earlier than final yr’s trial, the blocks surrounding the Superior Court docket in Dedham developed a carnivalesque ambiance. Learn supporters would collect in droves, holding indicators, chanting and making their presence recognized.
The buffer zone didn’t forestall a crowd from rising and supportive honking from passersby, which jurors may hear from the courtroom.
Particular prosecutor Hank Brennan mentioned the noises “could be influential, intimidating, concerning” and requested for buffer zone changes to forestall the jury from being influenced. Cannone accepted the request, citing the opportunity of Learn’s “right to a fair trial” being “jeopardized” as a result of hordes of supporters holding indicators and chanting.
“The risk extends during trial,” the choose wrote, “where jurors and witnesses would have no choice but to be exposed daily to the messages and viewpoints of the protestors when entering and leaving the courthouse or sitting in the courtroom or jury room.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts argued final yr forward of the primary trial that the prosecution’s request for a “whopping” 500-foot buffer zone and different restrictions would have an “impact on free speech, expression and assembly and therefore require very close constitutional scrutiny by this court.”
The Heart for American Liberty and Randazza Authorized Group are representing the plaintiffs on the grievance filed Tuesday. They argue the buffer zone “criminalizes speech based on content, location, and viewpoint, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
“Buffer zones that over-zealously prohibit all First Amendment activity are almost always unconstitutional and this one is no different,” mentioned Mark Trammell, govt director of the Heart for American Liberty. “The Karen Read trial continues to inspire passionate public debate—and citizens must be allowed to protest peacefully outside their own courthouse.”
