Over the past few weeks, the national media has been rife with stories of the ongoing Karen Read murder trial taking place in Massachusetts and presided over by Judge Beverly J. Cannone. In July 2023, the defense argued for Judge Cannone’s recusal, citing concerns of impartiality against the defendant. The judge dismissed the motion and began trial on April 16. Let’s get into the details.
Background
Karen Reed is on trial for the 2022 murder of her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, a Boston police officer. She is accused of running him over with her SUV, though the defense claims she is being framed amid a massive police coverup. In July, a person related to the victim alleged that he knew Judge Cannone. Responding to this, the defense attorneys filed a motion for recusal based on the argument that the facts “presented unquestionably are such that the public might — and that’s the key word — the public might doubt the court’s fairness in some regard.” Prosecutors objected to the recusal request.
The judge reviewed and denied the defense’s motion for recusal, stating, “I want to make it very clear that I reject the unsubstantiated rumors spread on the internet [that] can force a judge to recuse herself from a case.” Judge Cannone offered the defense attorneys the opportunity to appeal her decision, but they are not considering an appeal at this time.
Judge’s Duty to Remain Impartial
The principle of an impartial judiciary is embedded in the Massachusetts Constitution Declaration of Rights, which states that “It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice.” Pursuant to Massachusetts law, “a judge shall disqualify herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might be reasonably questioned, including but not limited to instances where…the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
According to a paper written by Kimberly Homan and Arthur Leavens on judicial recusal, “In ruling on a motion seeking recusal, a judge must consult first his [or her] own emotions and conscience. If he [or she] passes the internal test of freedom from disabling prejudice, he [or she] must next attempt an objective appraisal of whether this [is] a proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
As the defense argued in their motion, they were concerned over the public perception of Judge Cannone’s impartiality –but the judge found the request not credible and denied recusing herself, finding, “There’s no actual lack of impartiality, there’s no reasonable or credible appearance of lack of impartiality.”
Public Perception of Impartiality During Trial
Legal experts believe that two policy goals require a trial judge to recuse themselves from presiding over a case. The first goal is “to prevent the judge from deciding a case in which he or she is biased with regard to a party or has a personal interest.” The second goal, pertinent to the Reed trial, is “to ensure, not only that the trial judge is personally impartial, but also that the proceedings are perceived by the public as such.”
According to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the case In re Allied-Signal Inc. et al., “the disqualification decision must reflect . . . the need to secure public confidence through proceedings that appear impartial.” Here, the defense was concerned that online rumors circulating that the judge in the Reed case was connected to the victim might threaten public confidence in the judge’s ability to decide the case fairly. However, Judge Cannone rejected this argument and said she would not be swayed by internet rumors to recuse herself from the case, insisting she had no connection to the victim.
Ultimately, judges are legally obligated to uphold the law by overseeing cases impartially. A judge’s decision on a recusal motion is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of judicial discretion. Judge Cannone asserted that she had no connection to the victim in the Reed case and maintained that internet rumors would not affect her impartiality. Furthermore, she does not believe the public will perceive her as biased against the defendant.
Do you agree?
Interested in Judge Cannone’s Record or Motions to Recuse?
Check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-driven, state trial court research and analytics platform. We make the fragmented U.S. state trial court system searchable through a single interface, offering comprehensive insights into judges, cases, and opposing counsel. Effortlessly track lawsuits across states and stay updated with ongoing litigation documents. Request a demo today and elevate your legal practice with our intuitive analytics and API.
News & Article Sources:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/17/metro/karen-read-judge-beverly-cannone
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2023/07/25/karen-read-case-judge-cannone-declines-recusal
