Karen Read trial - Motion to Dismiss for Government Misconduct - Live Watch and Attorney Analysis

Karen Read is asking the Superior Court to dismiss her case as a sanction for misconduct by the Commonwealth. Specifically, she alleges:

- In the first trial, they dishonestly misrepresented an inverted video of the Canton Police Department sallyport where Karen's SUV was impounded as an accurate depiction to create a false impression about the proximity of law enforcement to her right rear taillight;

- The Commonwealth withheld and/or destroyed other video of the sallyport, including video showing Brian Higgins present and making a phone call at 1:36 a.m., as well as metadata that would show if the videos were authentic and unmodified until long after it was required to disclose them;

- Lt. Tully assisted Jen McCabe in tailoring a response to impeachment evidence produced by the defense showing that she went to the home of the investigating officer Sgt. Lank the day after John O'Keefe's death for an hour, which she had not previously disclosed, and then withheld statements she made that contradicted her trial testimony until after she testified;

- And, in redacted parts of the motion, that the government tampered with the jury in a manner that has not been publicly disclosed at this time.

The Commonwealth has responded that it was not required to preserve the sallyport video and it disclosed the video once it learned the video existed; denies that it tried to mislead the jury about the accuracy of the inverted video; argues that the partial and late production of sallyport videos after first claiming the footage was overwritten and then saying it was saved in an iCloud account and then in a paper file was not prejudicial; that the defense received Lt. Tully's report during the trial before his testimony and declined to cross-examine him about it or recall Jen McCabe; and that Lt. Fanning (whom the defense did not name) had no contact with the jury, didn't enter the courthouse during the trial, and did not tamper with the jury.

The defense has asked for this hearing to be continued because the Commonwealth continues to produce materials related to the motion, including now a chain of custody log for the sallyport videos that it previously represented was unavailable and could not be reproduced. The Commonwealth is opposing the continuance.

Based on all this, I'm expecting the hearing to go forward as scheduled but I'm really not sure what's going to happen. Is there going to be evidence taken about the handling of the sallyport videos and the various representations made about what is and isn't available and where it came from? Are we going to be able to learn some more specifics about how, exactly, Lt. Fanning (apparently) is alleged to have tampered with the jury? Naturally, I'm very curious to see how Judge Cannone is going to handle this mess that's landed in her court - and, of course, who she blames for making it.