‘Lawless act’: 4 Mass. residents suing Judge Cannone over Karen Read buffer zone

DEDHAM, Mass. — Four Massachusetts residents are suing Judge Beverly Cannone over her decision to reinstate a 200-foot buffer zone outside Dedham’s Norfolk Superior Court for the retrial of Karen Read, arguing that their “constitutional guarantees” to protest have been violated.

The buffer zone was first put in place ahead of Read’s first trial in April 2024 due to the significant public attention the case had drawn and then extended last week by Cannone at the request of the prosecution to limit demonstrators from gathering in the neighborhood around the courthouse.

Karen Read buffer zone Dedham court

Plaintiffs Jason Grant, Allison Taggart, Lisa Peterson, and Samantha Lyons called Cannone’s buffer zone a “lawless act,” arguing in the federal lawsuit that Cannone’s order “violates the constitutional guarantees of free speech and due process.”

The plaintiffs state in the complaint that all of their previous protests of Cannone and Read’s murder case have been peaceful and not on the grounds of the courthouse.

Included in the complaint was a photo showing Grant “engaged in a peaceful demonstration, with no adverse incidents.” The photo shows him holding signs that read, “Judge Bev is Conflicted” and “Bev’s Court is a Clownshow.”

Buffer Zone lawsuit

“They have been doing so peacefully. They have been doing so while Judge Cannone presides over cases in the Dedham Courthouse, and neither the Sixth Amendment nor the First Amendment have felt the slightest chafe,” the lawsuit states of the plaintiffs’ protests. “However, Judge Cannone has found her pretext to shut down protests against her — an ignoble request from the Commonwealth that an ill-defined ‘buffer zone’ be declared on the streets, public walkways, public library, and private properties surrounding the Dedham Courthouse.”

In reinstating the buffer zone for Read’s retrial, Cannone explained that she was fearful that demonstrators would taint the minds of prospective jurors as they make their way into the courthouse.

“When the matter is in court, individuals line the sidewalks outside the courthouse, loudly chanting and voicing their opinions about witnesses, attorneys, and the strength of the Commonwealth’s case,” Cannone wrote in her ruling. “If prospective jurors are exposed to the protestors and messages displayed on signs or otherwise, particularly before this Court has had an opportunity to instruct the jurors about their obligations with regard to remaining fair and unbiased, there is a substantial risk that the defendant’s right to a fair trial will be jeopardized.”

Judge Beverly Cannone

In addition to naming Cannone in the complaint, the plaintiffs also list the Trial Court of Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Police Superintendent Geoffrey Noble, Dedham Police Chief Michael d’Entremont, and Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey as defendants.

Cannone’s buffer zone ruling, which is being enforced by authorities, expliclity indicates that “no individual may demonstrate in any manner, including carrying signs or placards, within 200 feet of the courthouse complex during trial of this case, unless otherwise ordered by this court.”

The lawsuit seeks to block enforcement of the buffer zone order and restore their right to protest.

“There were no disturbances, incidents, nor interference with any of the trials taking place, but Judge Cannone was apparently embarrassed and annoyed by people protesting against her,” the lawsuit states. “Plaintiffs wish to continue to demonstrate, including criticizing Judge Cannone, off the grounds of the said courthouse complex but within the buffer zone during the second trial.”