On Tuesday, April 1, 2025, the Boston Herald reported that Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone has been sued for reinstating a buffer zone that restricts supporters of Karen Read from demonstrating outside the Dedham courthouse during her ongoing murder trial. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, claims that the buffer zone violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to peaceful protest.
The complaint is backed by four Massachusetts residents—Jason Grant, Allison Taggart, Lisa Peterson, and Samantha Lyons—who argue that their demonstrations have been lawful and peaceful. They seek to overturn the enforcement of the buffer zone order and restore their ability to protest outside the courthouse.
Judge Cannone’s decision to reinstate the buffer zone came last week in response to a request from the prosecution. The order mandates that supporters and opponents of Read must remain at least 200 feet away from the courthouse during her retrial, which commenced with jury selection on Tuesday. The buffer zone has been extended beyond the areas where supporters gathered during Read’s first trial last year.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs describe instances of peaceful demonstrations, including Grant holding signs that read “Judge Bev is Conflicted” and “Bev’s Court is a Clownshow” without causing any disturbances or disruptions to the ongoing trials. They assert that Judge Cannone’s actions stem from her embarrassment and annoyance at the protests rather than any legitimate concern for courtroom decorum.
During jury selection, Judge Cannone emphasized to potential jurors that the case should be decided solely on evidence presented in the courtroom, irrespective of external influences, including media coverage and public demonstrations. She asserted the importance of upholding the rule of law while acknowledging that public commentary surrounding the case would likely persist.
The atmosphere surrounding the courthouse has been described as lively, with supporters of Read gathering in large numbers, chanting and displaying signs. Despite the buffer zone restrictions, crowds continued to grow, and supportive honking could be heard by jurors inside the courtroom. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan expressed concerns that such noises could intimidate or influence jurors, prompting him to request adjustments to the buffer zone.
Judge Cannone approved this request, citing the potential risk to Read’s right to a fair trial due to the presence of demonstrators. She noted that jurors and witnesses would inevitably be exposed to the messages from protesters when entering and leaving the courthouse or while in the courtroom.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts previously argued against the prosecution’s request for a 500-foot buffer zone and other restrictions prior to Read’s first trial, stating that such measures would infringe on free speech and require close constitutional scrutiny.
The plaintiffs in the current lawsuit are represented by the Center for American Liberty and Randazza Legal Group. They contend that the buffer zone unjustly criminalizes speech based on its content, location, and viewpoint, violating both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Mark Trammell, executive director of the Center for American Liberty, stated that overly restrictive buffer zones that prevent First Amendment activities are typically unconstitutional.
Source:
