Karen Read judge sued over ‘buffer zone’ keeping protesters away from courthouse

close Video

Forensic psychologist reveals what makes jury selection in Karen Read’s murder retrial ‘very difficult’

Forensic psychologist Dr. John Delatorre breaks down the ‘difficult’ jury selection in Karen Read’s murder retrial on ‘The Story.’

Join Fox News for access to this content Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge. By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. Please enter a valid email address. By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. Having trouble? Click here.

Four protesters are suing Judge Beverly Cannone over a “buffer zone” that they say unlawfully keeps them too far away from the courthouse where Karen Read’s retrial on murder and other charges is underway in Massachusetts.

“Cannone has issued this order primarily to quash criticism directed at her, as…the only protests that have been documented have been the Plaintiffs in this case, who have quietly held signs criticizing Cannone,” the lawsuit alleges.

Those plaintiffs are Massachusetts residents Jason Grant, Allyson Taggart, Lisa Peterson and Samantha Lyons. Their lawsuit also names Geoffrey Noble, the state police superintendent, and Michael d’Entremont, the chief of police in Dedham, where the courthouse is located.

In their lawsuit, they are asking a federal court to declare the “buffer zone” an unconstitutional “prior restraint” on free speech and an injunction, plus legal fees.

KAREN READ JURY SELECTION: DOZENS IN POOL ALREADY HAVE AN OPINION ON THE CASE

Karen Read appears with her attorneys during the first day of jury selection in the retrial of Read at Norfolk Superior Court on Tuesday, April 1, 2025 in Dedham, Mass. (Nancy Lane/The Boston Herald via AP, Pool)

The court established a 200-foot buffer zone around the courthouse building itself and a parking lot behind the nearby Norfolk County Registry of Deeds building ahead of Read’s first trial last year.

The lawsuit takes issue with the expansion of that zone to extend to 200 feet around Bates Court, Bullard Street, Ames Street and Court Street for her second trial. 

SIGN UP TO GET TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER

A map of downtown Dedham, MA, showing the judge’s “buffer zone” around the Norfolk Superior Court building.

“Buffer zones that over-zealously prohibit all First Amendment activity are almost always unconstitutional and this one is no different,” said Mark Trammell, a lawyer for the plaintiffs and the executive director of the Center 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.”

HAVE A NEWS TIP? CLICK HERE

David Gelman, a Philadelphia-area defense attorney who has been following the case, told Fox News Digital the lawsuit is likely to fail.

“The judge is not saying they can’t protest – the judge is saying they just can’t protest at the courthouse,” he said. “The reasons are legit too. It could sway a jury each day they enter and leave the building.”

GET REAL-TIME UPDATES DIRECTLY ON THE TRUE CRIME HUB

Jason Grant, a protester who has been critical of Judge Beverly Cannone, holds signs outside the Norfolk Superior Court in a photo included in his lawsuit seeking to undo a “buffer zone” around the building. (US District Court for Massachusetts)

Similar orders have been upheld around the country, he added.

“The judge is 100% within her right to do this and will prevail,” he said. “It’s the most common gripe among protesters. All speech is not free speech.”

FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X

Protesters both for and against Read have been regularly attending many of her court dates since she was charged in 2022 with the murder of her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe, 46. 

GO HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF THE 2ND KAREN READ TRIAL

Read the lawsuit here:

A nor’easter tore through the region on the morning he was found dead – Jan. 29, 2022. An autopsy found he had died from trauma to the head and hypothermia. However, the medical examiner left the manner of death “undetermined.”

Groups both for and against a Karen Read conviction protest outside court. Blogger Aidan Kearney fires up Karen Read supporters outside a Norfolk Superior Court hearing in Dedham, Massachusetts for motions to dismiss some charges against Karen Read on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024. (Pool Images- Greg Derr USA Today Network)

The 45-year-old Read’s first trial over O’Keefe’s death ended with a hung jury last year.

Jury selection for the do-over began Tuesday. It is expected to take six to eight weeks after opening statements.

KAREN READ AND JOHN O’KEEFE: INSIDE EVOLUTION OF BOSTON MURDER MYSTERY SINCE JULY MISTRIAL

Karen Read giving John O’Keefe a kiss on the side of his head in an undated photograph. (Courtesy of Karen Read)

Read is charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene of a deadly accident. She could face up to life in prison if convicted of the top charge.

Read denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed that she is being framed as part of a police cover-up.

Officer John O’Keefe poses for his official headshot. O’Keefe’s girlfriend, Karen Reed, is currently on trial for a second time on murder and other charges after he was found dead outside of a Massachusetts home in January 2022. (Boston Police Department)

Cannone warned potential jurors at the start of jury selection Tuesday not to be influenced by protesters outside.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Critics of Karen Read gather outside the courthouse in Dedham, MA on Friday, June 28, 2024. Read is facing three charges, including second-degree murder of her Boston police officer boyfriend John O’Keefe in January 2022. (Patriot Pics/Backgrid for Fox News Digital)

“John Adams said that we are a government of laws, not of men, and that the law must be deaf to the clamoring of the public,” she said, referring to the Founding Father with deep Boston roots.

“He meant that while the public opinion about a given subject may ebb and flow, the law must be steady, reliable, and even-handed.”