Trial by Livestream
Outside the Dedham courthouse during Karen Read’s retrial, there were people who knew the case better than some lawyers. They weren’t jurors or reporters. They were fans, standing outside with signs and phones. When I think about cameras in the courtroom, that’s the scene I can’t shake.
When the verdict was read, cheers could be heard from outside the courthouse, where Read’s supporters had gathered. Her first trial ended in a mistrial in July 2024 when the jury couldn’t reach a verdict, and the retrial ended with her acquitted of the most steroid charges, including second-degree murder. The verdict mattered, but so did how many people felt they had watched it happen.
The case for cameras is strong. In Massachusetts, SJC Rule 1:19 says a judge shall permit news media to photograph, record, or transmit courtroom proceedings that are open to the public, within the rule’s limits. The idea is that people should be able to see justice for themselves instead of relying on someone else’s summary.
But access isn’t understanding. Many Read supporters first learned about the case from Youtubers and bloggers who streamed what was happening inside and outside the courthouse, and several said they got all of their information from those creators. The footage was public, but the interpretation was anything but neutral.
The court clearly saw the danger. The Supreme Judicial Court upheld a 200-foot buffer zone around the courthouse, reasoning that jurors had to be protected from outside influence, such as seeing pictures of supposed evidence in their path. Notice the irony. A trial open to the whole world needed a physical barrier to keep the world’s opinions away from the jury.
Why did this case blow up the way it did? Northeastern professor Daniel Medwed pointed to a botched police investigation, the possibility that law enforcement officers were alternative suspects, and small-town feuds, all of which fueled conspiracy theories online. In that environment, a trial stops looking like a search for the truth, and starts looking like a show with a fandom, which is something we saw in the Linday Clancy coverage too.
So I don’t think the camera is the villain. It shows everyone the same trial. What happens afterward, in the clips, the commentary, and the comment sections, decides whether the public becomes informed or just entrenched. If the footage belongs to everyone, who decides what it means?
Works Cited
El-Bawab, Nadine, et al. “Karen Read Found Not Guilty of Murder in Retrial on Police Officer Boyfriend’s Death.” ABC News, 18 June 2025, abcnews.go.com/news/story/karen-read-retrial-verdict-122895647.
Ellement, John R. “Supreme Judicial Court Upholds Buffer Zone Around Courthouse During Karen Read Trial.” The Boston Globe, 2 May 2024, bostonglobe.com/2024/05/02/metro/karen-read-case-buffer-zone/.
Kayata, Erin. “Why Did Karen Read Attract So Many Fans, and What’s Next for Trial Watchers?” Northeastern Global News, 25 June 2025, news.northeastern.edu/?p=271099.
Khaw, Maddie. “Karen Read Trial Fervor Fueled by Online Influencers.” The Boston Globe, 26 June 2024, bostonglobe.com/2024/06/26/metro/karen-read-trial-fervor-fueled-by-online-influencers.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. “Supreme Judicial Court Rule 1:19: Electronic Access to the Courts.” Mass.gov, mass.gov/supreme-judicial-court-rules/supreme-judicial-court-rule-119-electronic-access-to-the-courts.