Prosecution alleges Karen Read’s defense shaped federal probe, had ‘cozy’ expert ties
With both sides in the Karen Read case fighting over potential witnesses for the second trial, which begins next month, the prosecution is raising additional questions about the relationship between the defense and some contested witnesses. In his latest filing, Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan writes that the relationship between the defense and accident reconstruction firm ARCCA is “cozier than once portrayed.”To support his claim, Brennan adds a footnote stating that he has photographs showing Dr. Andrew Rentschler at a private luncheon where he spoke with Read’s father. Testimony from ARCCA witnesses is important to the defense because Read, 45, of Mansfield, is accused of hitting her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, with her SUV outside a Canton home on Jan. 29, 2022, and leaving him to die in a snowstorm following a night of drinking at two bars. During the first trial, ARCCA employee Daniel Wolfe testified that his testing suggested the damage to Read’s SUV was not consistent with striking a pedestrian, and Rentschler testified that O’Keefe’s injuries were also not consistent. Brennan has argued that an invoice and other communications show ARCCA was working directly with the defense and was not an independent group hired as part of the now-closed federal investigation.”Contrary to the defense’s repeated representations to this court, the public, and the first jury, the employees of ARCCA, LCC were and are not impartial nor unbiased,” Brennan wrote in a new motion submitted to the court on Monday.In fact, Brennan is also now accusing the defense of having a “murky relationship” with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the federal investigation. He argues that the defense provided its own selected materials without input from the prosecution and that it is not known what material was given to ARCCA. “The Commonwealth has a good faith belief that the defense instigated the now-closed federal investigation and actively participated in providing selective information and materials to the United States Attorney’s Office to attempt to propel and shape the federal investigation,” he wrote.Brennan, in his latest motion, continues to question the defense’s lack of transparency. He writes that Read’s team did not divulge their relationship with ARCCA until one day after the new U.S. Attorney provided materials that included correspondence between that office and the defense. “In addition to the shifty trial testimony relative to the witnesses’ relationship with the defense, the ARCCA witnesses did not contain their opinions to the parameters of their report during trial testimonies. At trial Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Rentschler, posing as neutral, independent experts were permitted to speculate and render opinions far beyond what was stated in their written reports,” Brennan wrote.Also Monday, Brennan argued to exclude testimony from witnesses Garrett Wing and retired FBI special agent Michael Easter. He says the defense has not adequately offered a reason for Wing’s testimony and that Easter’s opinion of the investigation would be inappropriate.Finally, Brennan asked the court to deny without a hearing the defense’s motion to block testimony from an expert from the firm hired to test the computer chips from Read’s SUV.
DEDHAM, Mass. —With both sides in the Karen Read case fighting over potential witnesses for the second trial, which begins next month, the prosecution is raising additional questions about the relationship between the defense and some contested witnesses.
In his latest filing, Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan writes that the relationship between the defense and accident reconstruction firm ARCCA is “cozier than once portrayed.”
To support his claim, Brennan adds a footnote stating that he has photographs showing Dr. Andrew Rentschler at a private luncheon where he spoke with Read’s father.
Testimony from ARCCA witnesses is important to the defense because Read, 45, of Mansfield, is accused of hitting her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, with her SUV outside a Canton home on Jan. 29, 2022, and leaving him to die in a snowstorm following a night of drinking at two bars.
During the first trial, ARCCA employee Daniel Wolfe testified that his testing suggested the damage to Read’s SUV was not consistent with striking a pedestrian, and Rentschler testified that O’Keefe’s injuries were also not consistent.
Brennan has argued that an invoice and other communications show ARCCA was working directly with the defense and was not an independent group hired as part of the now-closed federal investigation.
“Contrary to the defense’s repeated representations to this court, the public, and the first jury, the employees of ARCCA, LCC were and are not impartial nor unbiased,” Brennan wrote in a new motion submitted to the court on Monday.
In fact, Brennan is also now accusing the defense of having a “murky relationship” with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the federal investigation. He argues that the defense provided its own selected materials without input from the prosecution and that it is not known what material was given to ARCCA.
“The Commonwealth has a good faith belief that the defense instigated the now-closed federal investigation and actively participated in providing selective information and materials to the United States Attorney’s Office to attempt to propel and shape the federal investigation,” he wrote.
Brennan, in his latest motion, continues to question the defense’s lack of transparency. He writes that Read’s team did not divulge their relationship with ARCCA until one day after the new U.S. Attorney provided materials that included correspondence between that office and the defense.
“In addition to the shifty trial testimony relative to the witnesses’ relationship with the defense, the ARCCA witnesses did not contain their opinions to the parameters of their report during trial testimonies. At trial Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Rentschler, posing as neutral, independent experts were permitted to speculate and render opinions far beyond what was stated in their written reports,” Brennan wrote.
Also Monday, Brennan argued to exclude testimony from witnesses Garrett Wing and retired FBI special agent Michael Easter. He says the defense has not adequately offered a reason for Wing’s testimony and that Easter’s opinion of the investigation would be inappropriate.
Finally, Brennan asked the court to deny without a hearing the defense’s motion to block testimony from an expert from the firm hired to test the computer chips from Read’s SUV.
