Judge dismisses recusal request in Karen Read trial

By Jay Turner

Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone ruled on Tuesday that there was “no merit” to the arguments for her suggested recusal as advanced by defense attorneys during the latest pre-trial hearing in the closely watched murder case against Karen Read.

The defense team, led by Alan Jackson, had made the request based on a combination of factors that they said would give a “knowledgeable disinterested member of the public” a reason to doubt Cannone’s impartiality, although Jackson emphasized repeatedly that by no means were they suggesting that she was actually compromised.

Jackson did, however, point to what he said was a disturbing online exchange between a close relative of a prosecution witness and a journalist covering the case that included threats of physical harm and an insinuation that the witness’s family had a close relationship with Cannone and an “alarming ability to influence her decision-making in the case.”

Jackson further cited the judge’s refusal to rule on prior defense motions in a timely manner; her cancelation of a scheduled evidentiary hearing regarding requests for witnesses’ cell records; and what the defense said was her insistence on staying on the case despite being reassigned to the civil session. Norfolk ADA Adam Lally, in opposing the defense’s motion, dismissed the threats as baseless and said he had “never even had a moment of pause” about Cannone’s ability to remain impartial.

The other motion argued at Tuesday’s pre-trial hearing concerned a request by prosecutors to prohibit attorneys on either side from making prejudicial statements about the case outside the courtroom. Lally suggested that defense attorneys had crossed a line, particularly with their statements on the courthouse steps, and were essentially spoon-feeding “self-serving speculation” to eager reporters in such a way that it could pose a “substantial risk” to the impartiality of any potential jury pool.

However, Defense Attorney David Yannetti pushed back strongly against Lally’s assertions, exclaiming “how dare they” seek to infringe upon defense counsel’s First Amendment rights or harm their ability to defend their client, especially after seizing control of the narrative at the outset of the case and asserting Read’s guilt through numerous media appearances.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Cannone took the gag order motion under advisement and set the next pre-trial hearing date for September 15 at 2 p.m.

Share This Post

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=116691