00:00:02
the Comm off has filed a rule 17 motion
00:00:06
to obtain phone records from William
00:00:09
Reed for a 24-hour
00:00:11
period secondly the call Mo in that
00:00:14
motion is looking for records regarding
00:00:17
call logs for a 30-day period for
00:00:19
William
00:00:20
Reid although a different motion
00:00:22
similarly the call mod filed motion
00:00:25
simply for the call log for 30 days for
00:00:27
Janet re
00:00:33
the Commonwealth has a burden with two
00:00:37
of these charges one being second degree
00:00:39
murder to show the element of
00:00:43
knowledge it is the government's burden
00:00:45
to show that Miss Reed knew she struck
00:00:49
John o'keef second degree murder as the
00:00:52
court is aware is a person committing an
00:00:55
intentional act with a strong plain
00:00:57
likelihood of death
00:01:00
in a second-degree murder charge there
00:01:01
are a number of different theories that
00:01:02
a Comm M can progress it could be an
00:01:05
intention to hit somebody or it could be
00:01:09
that somebody intentionally drove struck
00:01:12
somebody left them behind and didn't
00:01:15
render Aid knowing that there's a strong
00:01:18
potential likelihood of
00:01:20
death When Miss Reed knew that she
00:01:23
struck John O'Keefe is a critical issue
00:01:25
in this case simply because the
00:01:28
government has significant ific evidence
00:01:30
outside of phone records to support and
00:01:33
to convince that Miss Reed knew she hit
00:01:36
John O'Keefe when she did the
00:01:38
government's entitled to their full
00:01:39
value of their
00:01:40
proof the records for 30 days to begin
00:01:43
with that aspect of William Reed's
00:01:45
records Miss Reed calls her father and
00:01:49
her mother a little after 1:00 on the
00:01:53
night she struck and killed John
00:01:55
o'keef she called both of them and those
00:01:58
calls were unanswered according to the
00:02:00
phone
00:02:01
records the inference that a 40-some
00:02:05
year old woman is calling her parents at
00:02:07
1:30 in the morning after this
00:02:10
tumultuous event the inference is strong
00:02:13
evidence that Miss Reed knew she had
00:02:16
done something terrible she knew she had
00:02:18
struck John o'keef and she knew that she
00:02:21
had left him
00:02:23
behind the 30-day period is an attempt
00:02:27
to Pro to protect the Privacy rights of
00:02:29
William and jam read by not asking for
00:02:31
the call the the text messages not
00:02:34
asking for SMS messages not looking to
00:02:36
fically download the phone just the call
00:02:39
records because I expect it'll establish
00:02:42
that there are no other calls in that
00:02:44
30-day period from Miss Reed to her
00:02:47
parents at 1:30 in the morning but can't
00:02:49
you get that from M Reed's phone no no
00:02:53
uh there were two search warrants from
00:02:54
Miss Reed's phone I can't read them uh
00:02:57
the the search warrant that was the tab
00:02:59
matched that I have isn't clear so I'll
00:03:02
need clear copies of those search ones
00:03:05
those are provided by the defense I can
00:03:07
provide clear copies the two search
00:03:09
warrants of Miss weed's phone are from a
00:03:11
period of January 28 6 p.m. to January
00:03:14
29th at 6 p.m. okay and the other one is
00:03:16
January 28th 9:30 to January 29th 5:30
00:03:20
okay and so they're not in this Reed's
00:03:21
records I am not looking to see any of
00:03:25
the other numbers that the family called
00:03:27
friends family whatever their purpose is
00:03:29
I'm not looking to even see it I want to
00:03:32
see and demonstrate there's an absence
00:03:34
of phone calls between Miss Reed and her
00:03:36
parents the 30 days prior to when she
00:03:39
drove into John o' Kei now it would help
00:03:42
the defense they want to expand that to
00:03:44
six months or a year I'm agreeable
00:03:46
because if there was phone calls at 1:30
00:03:48
in the morning I would not argue the
00:03:50
inference that it was remarkable that
00:03:52
would be an unfair inference but in the
00:03:54
absence of any other calls it is
00:03:56
terribly remarkable that she is panicked
00:03:58
calling her parents at 1:30 morning and
00:04:00
here's why it's important the type of
00:04:03
injury John o'i suffered that led to his
00:04:06
death was a type of injury that was
00:04:09
treatable if he had received treatment
00:04:12
within 1 to two hours I expect that
00:04:15
there are medical procedures that could
00:04:18
have saved him they could have produced
00:04:20
a drill and drilled it into his brain to
00:04:24
create bleeding so it wouldn't swell or
00:04:26
they could have cracked his Cranium now
00:04:29
certainly he would have suffered
00:04:30
significant
00:04:31
impairment um but I expect the
00:04:33
government is pursuing a
00:04:36
witness and my expectation on my
00:04:39
research as a witness will say
00:04:40
life-saving procedures within the first
00:04:42
two hours would have saved or could have
00:04:44
saved John o'keef and so if Miss Reed
00:04:48
knew within the first two hours that she
00:04:51
hit him and that medical procedures
00:04:54
could have saved his life then this is
00:04:57
relevant material to show her not
00:05:00
that something dramatic had happened and
00:05:02
that's why I want the 30 days only um
00:05:05
phone calls with her mother and father
00:05:07
nothing else am I interested in the
00:05:10
second part is the 24-hour
00:05:12
period um with William uh William
00:05:17
Reed the 24-hour phone records will show
00:05:22
Mr Reed's phone calls throughout that
00:05:26
evening or that morning and it's
00:05:27
important because Mr Reed
00:05:30
um had an opportunity to speak publicly
00:05:33
and he did so on Fox 25 which is a
00:05:35
subject of another motion and when he
00:05:37
speaks to Fox 25 he gives what I see as
00:05:40
an implied admission that his daughter
00:05:42
told him that she had hit something I
00:05:46
think there's more to that story that
00:05:47
will be explored at
00:05:50
trial the time of the phone calls to
00:05:53
miss reer important they're reflected in
00:05:54
her phone records in the morning that
00:05:56
she speaks to her father while she still
00:05:58
in the back of a police Poli car before
00:06:00
she's brought to the
00:06:02
hospital in that discussion with Fox
00:06:05
25 um the quote is in your first
00:06:07
discussions my motion leades off the yes
00:06:09
in discussion but it's in the first
00:06:11
discussions what did she tell
00:06:13
you Mr reita asserts that she tells him
00:06:17
about this implied confession at the
00:06:19
hospital which is after the actual first
00:06:22
conversation and so it'll be important
00:06:24
to be able to confront Mr Reed if
00:06:26
necessary with his own phone records he
00:06:29
can down to deny his daughter's phone
00:06:31
records he doesn't have to accept them
00:06:34
as true also in that first 24-hour
00:06:36
period it is important for the
00:06:38
government to establish that Mr Reed and
00:06:40
only Mr Reed controlled the phone in the
00:06:43
absence of a stipulation this is proof
00:06:46
that may be necessary a trial if Mr Reed
00:06:48
takes the position that other people had
00:06:50
access to his phone that first
00:06:53
conversation where she admits that she
00:06:55
struck something I.E Mr o'keef is
00:06:58
critical to the the government's case
00:07:01
and so we cannot rely just on Miss
00:07:04
Reed's phone for a couple of reasons
00:07:06
number one phone records often show
00:07:09
different Communications sometimes calls
00:07:12
or Hang-Ups don't register on a phone
00:07:15
and so they could be different secondly
00:07:18
I've learned that Miss Reed's phone was
00:07:20
sent to a taint team and the Comal does
00:07:24
not and should not know what if anything
00:07:26
was redacted from Miss Reed's records
00:07:28
the idea of sending it to a tank team I
00:07:31
surmise is that something was viewed uh
00:07:34
that determined that it should go to a
00:07:36
tank team or perhaps the defense raised
00:07:37
the issue I don't have the benefit of
00:07:39
the history but what I do know is we
00:07:41
cannot say that the records from this
00:07:42
read are are full accounting for records
00:07:45
and so that Mr Reed's records stand
00:07:47
separately from Mr Reed's records those
00:07:50
are the two different types of Records I
00:07:52
am requesting from William Reed I've
00:07:55
been careful to make it
00:07:57
limited I'm not looking to see this
00:07:59
physical phone I'm not looking for a
00:08:01
forensic download after the first day of
00:08:04
Mr Reed's uh Records all I am looking
00:08:07
for is call subscriber information in
00:08:09
phone registers I note the defense point
00:08:13
of collateral information I don't even
00:08:14
want to see it I just want to see if
00:08:17
this communication between Miss Reed and
00:08:18
her parents so that if we present that
00:08:20
inference it is a sound inference it is
00:08:22
a fair inference um and it is a solid
00:08:25
inference and that's my argument
00:08:27
regarding the phone records of Mr re
00:08:30
all right who's arguing this for the
00:08:32
defense thank
00:08:40
you your honor the defense requests that
00:08:42
the Commonwealth rule 17 motion seeking
00:08:45
M Reed's father's private cell phone
00:08:47
information be denied the Commonwealth
00:08:50
is seeking three categories of
00:08:52
information for Mr Reed's cell
00:08:54
phone his private subscriber
00:08:57
information all call records call detail
00:09:00
records SMS MMS and all data use records
00:09:05
from January 29th and January 30th
00:09:08
2022 and finally all call De detail
00:09:11
records for an entire month-long period
00:09:14
spanning December 30th
00:09:16
2021 until January 30th
00:09:20
2022 your honor we are three years into
00:09:23
this litigation and the Commonwealth is
00:09:25
now seeking to invade Mr Reed's privacy
00:09:28
under the guise that it's seeking
00:09:29
Communications between Mr Reed and his
00:09:32
daughter but the Commonwealth already
00:09:34
has a record of all of the
00:09:36
communications between Mr Reed and his
00:09:38
daughter on January 29th from not one
00:09:41
but two separate
00:09:42
sources the Commonwealth is in
00:09:44
possession of his reed cell phone it's
00:09:46
also in possession of Mis Reed's Verizon
00:09:48
records the Commonwealth is asking this
00:09:51
court to sanction his gross invasion of
00:09:53
his of her father's privacy so the
00:09:55
Commonwealth can sift through Mr Reed's
00:09:58
electronic data for inform that is
00:10:00
already in the possession of the
00:10:01
Commonwealth now I know Mr Brenan says
00:10:03
I'm not interested in seeing anything
00:10:04
else but the problem is that's not what
00:10:07
his motion says right he's asking for
00:10:09
every single call regardless of
00:10:11
recipient for a monthlong
00:10:13
period William Reed has never been
00:10:16
called by the Commonwealth to testify as
00:10:17
a witness in this case so this is a new
00:10:20
trial right so that doesn't prohibit the
00:10:23
common from calling him I understand
00:10:25
your honor okay he wasn't present at 34
00:10:28
Fairville he wasn't present at CF
00:10:30
McCarthy's and he wasn't present at the
00:10:32
waterfall on January 29th 2022 and I
00:10:36
would note that this court has
00:10:37
repeatedly emphasized the importance of
00:10:40
privacy concerns when it comes to an
00:10:42
individual's cell phone using that as a
00:10:45
basis to deny the defendants motions to
00:10:48
obtain cell phone records from parties
00:10:49
who were present that
00:10:55
night the Commonwealth again is already
00:10:58
in possession of misery phone
00:11:01
the that has been reviewed by both a
00:11:04
special Master as well as the court and
00:11:06
the court is well aware that the
00:11:07
Commonwealth has a full copy of those
00:11:10
Communications um and what's important
00:11:13
is that those call logs confirm that
00:11:15
misy did not make any calls to her
00:11:18
father on January 29th until after she
00:11:22
discovered Mr o'keef lying incapacitated
00:11:24
on Brian Albert's front line and I've
00:11:26
attached a copy of those records to our
00:11:28
motion if it's quite clear there was one
00:11:31
call to her father on the morning of
00:11:32
January 29th that was at 6:32 a.m. the
00:11:36
Commonwealth has a copy of those records
00:11:38
it's in their possession and as this
00:11:41
court knows lamron explicitly requires
00:11:44
that any rule 17 motion must be
00:11:47
accompanied by an affidavit containing a
00:11:50
factual showing that all four elements
00:11:52
of lampron were met here the
00:11:55
Commonwealth has failed to meet its
00:11:57
burden to meet even a single prom of
00:12:00
that four-part
00:12:05
test in regards to the the burden that
00:12:08
they have to establish that the the
00:12:10
records are evidentiary and relevant the
00:12:12
Commonwealth in its affidavit set forth
00:12:15
no particularized facts whatsoever to
00:12:18
suggest that relevant information will
00:12:20
be found in Mr Reed's Verizon
00:12:22
records the affidavit makes only vague
00:12:25
reference to an interview Mr Reed gave
00:12:27
to Boston 25 but fails to explain why
00:12:30
that interview suggests that relevant
00:12:31
Communications will be found on his
00:12:33
phone phone
00:12:35
records and I would note the common
00:12:37
almost characterization of that
00:12:38
interview is incorrect and
00:12:41
incomplete I submitted additional
00:12:43
reporting from Boston 25 which is the
00:12:45
news organization that published a
00:12:47
portion of that interview and it's quite
00:12:49
clear that Mr Reed goes on to State
00:12:51
during that interview that what he's
00:12:52
referring to when his daughter said I
00:12:54
believe I hit something was the Chevy
00:12:57
Traverse which the court knows we have a
00:12:58
video of her sh hitting a shovey
00:13:00
Traverse that
00:13:02
morning the Commonwealth is already in
00:13:04
possession of M re's Communications from
00:13:06
January 29th those were included in the
00:13:08
the Commonwealth's motion itself um and
00:13:12
the Commonwealth has failed to explain
00:13:14
why it believes additional relevant
00:13:16
Communications will be found in the call
00:13:18
detail and text records that was not
00:13:20
included in the
00:13:23
affidavit the commonweal states they
00:13:25
expect to substantively admit the phone
00:13:27
records between M Reed and her father to
00:13:29
prove that the 6:32 a.m. call took place
00:13:32
but they can do that with the phone
00:13:33
records that they already have just
00:13:35
because they have records from barizon
00:13:37
that doesn't establish who answered the
00:13:39
phone that's not something that they're
00:13:40
going to get from
00:13:41
Verizon
00:13:44
um the Commonwealth is well aware of
00:13:46
that fact because they have M cell phone
00:13:49
and Herbert Rising record so they can
00:13:50
confirm that there's only one call on
00:13:52
the morning of January 29th the
00:13:54
Commonwealth has provided no factual
00:13:56
basis whatsoever to suggest that there
00:13:59
are relevant Communications that will be
00:14:00
found on January 30th the day after this
00:14:04
incident and the Commonwealth also
00:14:06
request that M re's phone records for
00:14:08
the full month preceding January 29
00:14:11
2022 um is necessary to show that it
00:14:14
would be unusual for Karen have called
00:14:16
her father and the the Commonwealth did
00:14:18
a kind of funny thing right they they
00:14:20
suggested during their arguments that
00:14:22
she called both
00:14:23
parents in the middle of the night
00:14:25
that's not true there was only one call
00:14:28
to her father on January 29th the
00:14:30
morning of it was at 6:32 a.m. so the
00:14:33
frequency at which Miss Reed calls her
00:14:35
father cell phone in the middle of the
00:14:36
night has no relevance
00:14:40
whatsoever as to the second element of
00:14:43
lamron here the Commonwealth affidavit
00:14:45
is facially deficient it doesn't even
00:14:47
reference this element or set forth any
00:14:50
facts supporting um that it's shown that
00:14:52
the Commonwealth records are not
00:14:54
otherwise procurable reasonably in
00:14:56
advance of trial and the reason Mr
00:14:59
cannot in good faith make that statement
00:15:00
under oath is because the Commonwealth
00:15:02
is already in possession of these
00:15:04
communications from two separate
00:15:07
sources element three of lamron was also
00:15:11
not addressed in the commonwealths
00:15:12
affidavit it's facially deficient the
00:15:14
common wealth has failed to show that it
00:15:16
cannot properly prepare for trial
00:15:18
without the production of this evidence
00:15:19
and that the failure to obtain the
00:15:21
evidence would unreasonably delay
00:15:23
trial again that's because the
00:15:25
Commonwealth is already in possession of
00:15:27
the evidence that they're requesting
00:15:32
finally the Commonwealth has also failed
00:15:34
to show that this request is made in
00:15:35
good faith and is not a fishing
00:15:37
expedition in its affidavit the
00:15:39
Commonwealth briefly addresses the
00:15:40
fourth element of lampron but writes
00:15:43
only quote the Commonwealth's motion is
00:15:45
not a fishing Expedition as it is
00:15:47
evidenced from the defendant's phone
00:15:49
records that phone calls between
00:15:50
defendant and Mr Reed were made sometime
00:15:53
after defendant struck the victim and
00:15:54
before the victim was found your honor
00:15:57
that statement is provably
00:15:59
false M re's phone records established
00:16:02
conclusively that she did not call her
00:16:04
father on January 29th until 6:32 a.m.
00:16:08
after she found her boyfriend
00:16:10
incapacitated on Brian Albert's front
00:16:12
lawn therefore the requested records
00:16:16
should not be turned over to the
00:16:18
Commonwealth this is a broad request to
00:16:20
review A month's worth of Mr Reed's
00:16:23
private cell phone information and all
00:16:25
of his data usage information from
00:16:27
January 29th and January 30th this is a
00:16:30
fishing Expedition plain and simple the
00:16:33
Commonwealth isn't asking for the
00:16:34
records it already has it doesn't need a
00:16:36
third copy of them what it's looking to
00:16:39
do is sift through Mr Reed's personal
00:16:41
cell phone information on January 29th
00:16:45
to see if it can find data usage
00:16:47
information location information text
00:16:50
messages with other individuals and that
00:16:51
it's a completely inappropriate use of
00:16:53
rule 17 this unsupported request is over
00:16:56
Brad and must be denied
00:17:00
thank you all right thank you did you
00:17:02
want to respond in any way Mr Bron or
00:17:04
move on very briefly
00:17:12
okay in between the multiple accusations
00:17:15
of bad faith what the attorney says that
00:17:17
is most telling
00:17:20
is they don't know who answered the
00:17:23
phone that's a Harbinger to trial the
00:17:27
the prosecution doesn't know who
00:17:28
answered the phone when Karen Reed
00:17:30
called her parents or her mother's phone
00:17:32
at 1:43 a.m. no the Commonwealth doesn't
00:17:37
and so we have to prepare that when Mr
00:17:39
Reed takes the stand we have phone
00:17:42
records demonstrating all of his phone
00:17:43
calls and that he had control of that
00:17:45
phone so there can't be a suggestion
00:17:47
somebody else was handling the phone or
00:17:51
on the other hand if the position is
00:17:52
going to be that um Janet Reed answered
00:17:56
the phone the father's phone or that
00:17:59
William Reed answered the mother's phone
00:18:00
then we'll call both Witnesses at trial
00:18:02
and we'll sort it out but it is that
00:18:04
very nature of suggesting confusion our
00:18:07
uncertainty that the government is
00:18:09
obligated to try to prevent that
00:18:11
trial and we're being diligent we're
00:18:14
being studious and we're going to be
00:18:15
prepared and these records will help us
00:18:17
do that that is the exact point and
00:18:19
reason why we need these records thank
00:18:21
you all right did you want to respond at
00:18:24
all miss little well I think the
00:18:26
Commonwealth actually brought up the
00:18:28
issue of that it it tried to basically
00:18:30
say I need the Verizon records because
00:18:33
Karen's phone records don't establish
00:18:35
that Mr Reed answered the phone but all
00:18:37
I'm saying is that neither do the
00:18:39
Verizon records so there is no
00:18:41
additional information the Commonwealth
00:18:43
is going to obtain by digging through Mr
00:18:45
Reed's private cell cell phone
00:18:47
information
00:18:49
okay all right so we sort of overlapped
00:18:52
a little bit with Mrs Reed uh Janet
00:18:55
Reed's records do you want to be heard
00:18:57
further on that Mr brenon
00:19:00
no I believe the court understands my
00:19:02
argument unless the court has any
00:19:03
questions for me I don't but miss thank
00:19:06
you Miss L um is there anything specific
00:19:08
to Mrs Reed that you want to
00:19:11
address yes your honor again I just
00:19:13
emphasize
00:19:15
that the affidavit in support of their
00:19:17
request for M Reed's phone records is
00:19:20
plainly insufficient they haven't
00:19:22
addressed numerous elements of lamb PR
00:19:24
that alone is a basis to deny the
00:19:26
request and it's not permissive it's
00:19:29
mandatory that the Court deny the
00:19:30
request lamron is very clear if you
00:19:33
don't meet a factual showing in the
00:19:35
affidavit in support of your rule 17
00:19:37
motion then the motion must be denied
00:19:39
three of the elements were not even
00:19:40
addressed in that motion so on that
00:19:43
basis we request that the Court deny the
00:19:45
motion okay
