SPEAKER_01 0:00

Karen Reed just filed a civil lawsuit against the Massachusetts State Police and the Canton Police Department, and it is explosive. Welcome to the show. I'm your host, Margaret McLean, a former prosecutor and civil trial lawyer. I'm here to translate the law for you. In this episode, I'll be discussing the shocking text messages between members of law enforcement that were just revealed and broader implications. First, I'll explain what the civil complaint alleges, and then I'll bring in my guest, Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer Morgieta De Rissier, to weigh in on the impact the case will have in Massachusetts and perhaps across the country. The complaint contains text messages attributed to former state trooper Michael Proctor and former Canton Sergeant Sean Good that include racial slurs, anti-Semitic remarks, misogynist comments, praise for Adolf Hitler, discussions about planting cocaine on people, and statements suggesting violence against others. I read through those text messages when the case first came out, and I had trouble sleeping that night because I've never seen anything so vile and disgusting and full of hatred. It was really disturbing. So I have to separate the outrageousness of those texts from the actual legal liability in this case. The lawsuit argues that these were not isolated jokes, private opinions, or lapses in judgment. According to Reed's attorneys, the messages revealed deeply rooted prejudices that made both men unfit for positions of public trust and ultimately influenced the investigation into John O'Keefe's death. The complaint describes Proctor and Good as inveterate bigots whose longtime friendship was built around shared hostility toward women, minorities, Jewish people, gay people, and others. It alleges that the Massachusetts State Police and Canton Police Department either knew or should have known about these attitudes and failed to act. Legally, this case is about negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. It's about institutional accountability. What were the internal policies? How extensive were background checks and training? Was there oversight? And whether bias within an investigator can undermine the integrity of an entire criminal investigation. The issue is not whether the texts are offensive. Of course they are. They're vile. They're the worst I've ever seen. The issue is whether the Massachusetts State Police and Canton Police Department knew or should have known that officers entrusted with enormous investigative discretion held deeply rooted biases that could affect the course of a criminal investigation. In my opinion, one of the most fascinating allegations involves Michael Proctor's hiring. The lawsuit references a 2017 text in which Proctor wrote, quote, no idea how I passed the background, unquote. The complaint also points to a 2013 message where Proctor warned friends that a state police investigator would be contacting them during his background investigation. So the obvious question for plaintiffs' lawyers becomes: Did the Massachusetts State Police exercise reasonable care when conducting Proctor's background check? The complaint further alleges that Proctor unsuccessfully sought employment with the Boston Police Department before joining the state police. If Boston identified concerns with Proctor, what happened to the state police? Did they just miss something? Did they ignore red flags? Did they exercise due diligence? Negligent supervision may be the strongest institutional claim. The lawsuit references thousands of communications spanning years. Plaintiff's attorneys will argue, if these communications existed over such a long period of time, what systems were in place to identify misconduct? For example, what oversight existed? What were the warning signs? Were supervisors aware? Should supervisors have been aware? What were the reporting mechanisms that existed? What about disciplinary mechanisms and systems? What policies governed personal phones and electronic communications? That will come out in this lawsuit. What did they know and when did they know it? This is the central issue. Every negligent supervision case eventually comes down to the same questions. What did the employer know? What should the employer have known? When did they know it? And what did they do about it? Those questions will likely dominate discovery in this case. The discovery battle is likely going to be the most important phase of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs' lawyers will seek personnel files, internal affairs records, disciplinary histories, background investigation materials, promotion records, training records, department policies, of course, electronic communications policies, that's a big one, internal complaints, and prior allegations of bias. They will attempt to determine whether warning signs existed long before Karen Reed was investigated. Believe me, there's going to be quite a battle over the admissibility of these text messages. The court will ask: are they probative? Do they help prove a relevant fact? Or are they simply inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial? The defense will argue these offensive comments are disgusting, but they do not prove that Karen Reed was framed. The plaintiffs will argue the texts reveal the mindset of investigators exercising enormous discretion in a criminal investigation. And this is going to be a significant legal battle. You wait. One thing I learned as a former prosecutor is that members of law enforcement must make many decisions every day. They have to make judgment calls. For example, they have to decide which witnesses to believe, which to ignore, which leads to pursue, which evidence to collect, and the alternative theories that deserve investigation. The plaintiff's argument is that deeply rooted prejudice can influence those decisions, not necessarily through overt misconduct, but through discretionary choices that shape the entire direction of an investigation. The biggest challenge for the plaintiff Karen Reed will be proving causation. Her lawyers must connect the prejudicial attitudes of Michael Proctor and Sean Good to actual decisions made in the criminal investigation against her. Was the criminal investigation into whether she struck her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV tainted from the very beginning and throughout the entire thing? That's what they have to prove. Causation. Overall, if Karen Reed can prove that these biases were known, ignored, or should have been discovered through ordinary supervision, this lawsuit could become a landmark case about institutional accountability. Can the public maintain confidence in the justice system when allegations like these come to light? So tonight I'm very lucky to be joined by attorney Morgieta Derisier, a seasoned lawyer who has been following this case closely. We'll discuss not only the legal claims in Karen Reed's lawsuit, but also the larger questions of accountability, institutional culture, public trust, and whether bias can affect the way investigations are conducted. Morgietta, welcome to the show. Hello, thank you for having me.

SPEAKER_00 8:43

How are you, Margaret?

SPEAKER_01 8:45

I'm great. Thank you for joining me. Spent to guest together on NBC's Commonwealth Confidential. We discussed the Karen Reed trial last year. Morgietta, we can agree. These texts that were revealed.

SPEAKER_00 8:59

Don't get me started. Don't get me started, but yes.

SPEAKER_01 9:02

Are so highly offensive, full of racial slurs, hatred, condemning just about every group from women to LGBTQ, praising Hitler.

SPEAKER_00 9:12

I know. I agree with you. I have family members who are in the Boston Police Division. I have family members out of state as well. And I think for me, it really was the fluidity of the messages, right? It wasn't just an isolated incident or a small joke that was being cracked on the side. We only can see a snapshot of these messages that were just subpoenaed for this very brief amount of time. But can you imagine if we had in our disposal just years and years worth of these messages? I mean, you couldn't, you wouldn't be able to breathe. I mean, they're just so heavy to read on the eyes that I can only imagine what wasn't subpoenaed and what wasn't extracted from the phone. Shocks the consciousness, you know, about it's the fluidity, you know, it's it's the audacity that was for me.

SPEAKER_01 10:10

Good and Proctor have been friends since high school. So I think this goes way back. Their biases, the way they felt about all different groups of people, the lawsuit alleged an embedded culture of bigotry, misogyny, systemic failures, and institutional rot. Yes. And that's a serious allegation.

SPEAKER_00 10:31

I think it's not even so much that it's an allegation, it's the culpability of not only just Procter and Good, but think about all the other people that they're surrounded with, right? I think a lot of people have talked about whether or not their superiors, their friends, their colleagues really didn't know, right? Because you have these high-ranking officials who have been in these positions for years, who made their way up to these positions, and they want us as the general public to believe that this all of a sudden just came to be, right? And we have to eat that that pill and just assume that this is new to light. But that goes back to the spirit of this complaint that was filed in Bristol County. This appears to be a culture, not that it's just a culture, an acceptable culture. Because that's what scares me. Clearly, this is not something that just happened because of the Karen Reed case, right? It just so happened to be that the Karen Reed case or cases started to uncover and expose some of this culture. And I also want to be clear as well, and I've said this before what's happening to Karen Reed is not unique to her. She is a voice for many people who have experienced similar issues in similar situations in more egregious situations. And I think that people have to remember that these text messages, although there were some read, you know, similar, not as bad, but some in her trial, you know, they came from trying to rosemary scapaccio's investigation into the in her client's case. That's where these messages really kind of stem from. So just imagine what's going on in that case that led to the exposure of these text messages that now are being tied back to the Karen Reid case, right?

SPEAKER_01 12:30

So it's just yeah. Can you imagine if they had all of these text messages for the trial last year?

SPEAKER_00 12:37

I think we, I mean, we already had a very interesting trial. Everyone was glued to the TV with that trial. This would have been the icing on the cake. I mean, it I don't even know if the judge would allow some of these to be read. But no, yeah, I mean, it just it just goes to show that again, there's something about this culture that's being raised. Not that it didn't exist before, but how far back are we gonna say that we didn't know? We couldn't have known. We were gonna ignore.

SPEAKER_01 13:12

Yeah, I know. And speaking of that, let's talk a little bit of law because you sort of brought it up. The judge who is will ultimately decide this case, that the civil case against the police departments, he or she is going to have to go through which of these texts is probative versus which are prejudicial, because not all these texts are going to come in because I think they may be so outrageous that they're gonna be prejudicial. What do you think about that?

SPEAKER_00 13:41

I agree. And I I also kind of want to piggyback on that and say that we have two cases going on. We have the case in the court of law, and we have the case in the court of public opinion, right? And we we cannot ignore the fact that Karen Reed and her team have strategically filed this in a way to gain garner from the court of public opinion while also starting their trail in the court of law. So it's a double-edged sword, but I agree. Will all of these messages come in when there's a trial fact? Probably not. But guess what? That's probably not what the avenue is. I I would be shocked if this case went to trial. You're gonna be there's just certain things that you just kind of just let go away, you know, quietly as best as you can. But I agree to answer your question. A lot of these messages won't won't come in, but I don't think that was the point. I think the point was bigger than that. Oh, yeah. I think the point was very well made.

SPEAKER_01 14:48

Absolutely. And I don't know if you had a chance, you were probably in court yourself trying a case, but I happened to listen to the motion today on whether Proctor's deposition in the wrongful death case could be delayed. And the word strategic came up quite a bit. So Proctor says, you know, allegedly there's some medical condition that's under seal. We don't know what it is, but Proctor's not gonna show up for his deposition today. They told him on Friday. Basically, Proctor's lawyer said, Oh, my client can't show up for Monday. And poor Alan Jackson fly all the way out, even though he appeared on the New York Talk shows. When was it, Friday? Right. He was kind of already here. But do you think that was uh strategic that this lawsuit was filed uh what just a few days before his scheduled deposition?

SPEAKER_00 15:43

I'll definitely say it's not ironic and say it's not a coincidence. I'll definitely say that for sure. But even Karen Reed herself said on the Today show that this lawsuit was something that they plan to file all along. So I think right now we're on lawsuit, civil lawsuit three or four. So I can't imagine that this is something that wasn't strategic because clearly, you know, there's this platform that has been created by Karen Reed and her team. Everything that they do, I would call very strategic. I also want to bring up something else that the judge mentioned in the hearing, too, because I did have a chance eventually to listen to it, even though I was in court. But something he mentioned too was that in civil litigation, it is very true that civil lawyers are supposed to be, for lack of better words, civil. There really isn't supposed to be any surprises. Like if you're gonna depose me, you're not supposed to sneakily do it or plan your vacation when you know I'm gonna come to the you know, you're supposed to be civil about it. Right, absolutely. I do credit uh Justice Gildea's position that look, you knew you were gonna depose this gentleman on Monday, and then a couple days before that deposition, you knew you were gonna fly in to the East Coast, and then you filed this salacious grandeur complaint in Bristol County, and you didn't let his attorney know. I mean, he didn't have an opportunity or a right to. He he absolutely doesn't have to say anything, but it was strategic. You gotta just take it for what it's worth.

SPEAKER_01 17:23

Morgina, I I want to ask you do you think that the bias affects investigations? Like, do you think there's a disconnect between a police department's official policies and their booklets and their training and the culture that exists among the members of the organization?

SPEAKER_00 17:42

In the last few years, we have seen a culture of the investigation into the police tactics and procedures that they've used on cases across the board, whether they're district court cases, superior court cases, assault and battery versus you know, driving under the influence, a lot of that is becoming heavily uh under scrutiny. There are organizations currently studying statistics of police officers and you know, the number of stops they do, the number of OUIs they have, the towns, the locations. So it is coming under scrutiny. And I think that this particular case, all it's doing is raising that level of, hey, not only should you be focusing on these statistics, focus also on the culture that fosters those statistics, right? So I think that we're gonna see a lot more scrutiny, not only just in like Kenton and the Mass State police, but all over towns and cities all over where there have been questions about the procedures of police officers. Now, don't get me wrong, police officers walk into a very dangerous situation every single day. They, you know, have to entrust that the person that they're communicating and engaging with doesn't have certain mental health disabilities, that they don't have health issues. So they walk into crisis situations almost every single day. However, we they're public servants, right? So they're here for our behalf and our benefit to protect and to serve us. So there is a little bit of a level of understanding that the public should have to have too, right? So yeah, I don't have all the answers personally to say that. You don't. I will say that we will definitely see more and more investigation, more and more scrutiny, and more and more change, right? Because I think that's really what this lawsuit is as hard as it is to read, reading between the lines, we're looking at change. We're looking at policy change, we're looking at culture change, we're looking at change, and that should be for the greater good of everyone, right? It shouldn't really be to embarrass anyone or whatever the case may be, but really to effectually change for the greater good.

SPEAKER_01 20:07

I agree. And in fact, change is starting to happen. I think since the Karen Reed case, the trial came about. I actually know someone, a young person who applied to be a police officer in one of the towns in Massachusetts. And he was he got in, he's very smart, bright. And so he gets in, but he's not covered by the union yet. I believe there's some sort of period where you're where you're not. Well, he made a really stupid, stupid joke that was against a gay person. It it he was fired on the spot. Thought to myself, Karen Reed case must have made a difference in Massachusetts because he can never be a police officer again, because that's on his record.

SPEAKER_00 20:52

And it should be, right? I think we should anyone who holds public office or you know, public officials, or even you and I, even attorneys, we have a level of standards that we have to follow too, and we get admonished to. There's a rule book just for our professional conduct. I think that it's just about making sure that everybody's on the same level playing field, and no one should feel above or superior than one person. Every joke, as they say, has a little bit of truth to it. Taking all of that into consideration and just holding people really accountable for the duties and obligations that they signed up for.

SPEAKER_01 21:30

Absolutely. Speaking of the rules of professional conduct, did you hear the judge read those right out to the to the attorneys today?

SPEAKER_00 21:37

He did. It does two things. Number one, it tells you the flavor of this judge. He is very soft spoken. He didn't have to raise his voice, he didn't have to be stern, but you can read between the lines what he meant. So that was the first reason why I think he read that. But number two, it was a reminder that this is still a court of law. We still have to get to a finish line. At some point, in order to get to the finish line, we have rules to get to the finish line. So let's keep that in mind, everybody. This Karen Reed, it's no surprise that this is public case. Every case that Karen Reed will ever touch will be a public case, right? But at the end of the day, we still have a court of law, we still have rules, we still have to follow those rules. So he was definitely putting it direct to the attorneys and just reminding that besides everything that's in the media, we still have rules here. Everyone follow the rules here.

SPEAKER_01 22:36

Oh, yeah. I agree. Back to those offensive texts. You are a criminal defense attorney. You've been practicing for what, 12 years? Yeah, I think going on like 14, 15 years. 14, 15 years. Okay. After this, will you be changing your strategy at all? And what I mean by that is, will you, if you believe a police officer who has investigated one of your clients holds similar beliefs to Michael Proctor or Sean Good, will you try to subpoena their personal phone records? How would you go about that?

SPEAKER_00 23:07

Yeah, that's actually a really interesting question because I've tried cases and I've had to unfortunately put some officers in the hot seat because sometimes you can read, you know, you're reading the police report, you're trying to imagine how the facts are laid out, and you kind of think to yourself, something doesn't really add up, something really doesn't make sense. But maybe the rest of your case is strong enough that you don't even have to dig into that. Or sometimes your case is weak enough and you don't really know where to start. But yes, absolutely. My eyes are even more wide open, my ears even more perked up to think about well, you know, if I'm feeling, you know, a certain way about how these facts came to be, maybe there is something else that I'm missing. Maybe there is some background noise that isn't part of this. And and I think the other thing is too, we only see Procter and Good, but there will be a number, a number of other people who are gonna trust me, be put on this list. So it may just make my job easier because the list will already be ready right there. But you know, I think it does. I think any good defense attorney is gonna start thinking, like, okay, just calls to mind, you know, for example, one of the um messages where Proctor essentially says that he's not gonna rush to the scene because you know there's a black person there. And it's like, okay, so there goes uh tampering with evidence, there goes, you know, a list of kind of like violations, and you're like, huh, I wonder in such and such case, if if that's what happens here, but you it it makes you think and question if a timeline doesn't make sense, why is that? Maybe if there's multiple police reports from multiple angles, you kind of have to start thinking about these a little bit differently now.

SPEAKER_01 24:59

Absolutely. I wonder if anybody's figured out, oh, I was in that crash, how fast did the ambulance come?

SPEAKER_00 25:05

I know. Can you imagine if that was you're thinking back years, like, wait a second, I I remember this. Or imagine if you were like the EMT on that case, or if you were just like a bystander thinking, like, wow, it's taking the police to get here so long, and here's your answer, like right front and center, and and you're feeling that gut feeling down there, and you're just like, I can't believe that this was the reason.

SPEAKER_01 25:30

Oh, I know. And another thing I want to bring up, too, that I've been thinking about is not only for criminal defendants, but Proctor talks about attacking his girlfriend while she's asleep. So R and SA that he needed to roofie somebody. So it also, in my opinion, speaks to victims of crime as well. Like, how seriously would he take a victim's version of events?

SPEAKER_00 25:54

Yeah, absolutely. And again, it goes back to what I was saying before. We're only seeing a snapshot of these messages. He there could have been others. What if there are other like damning pieces of information where God forbid, knocking with there was an actual assault? Like, we don't even know. But just to see that this is the thought process of this individual and that this is the mentality of this individual, it's just it's more than just hard to read and hard to believe, it's just infallible. Like, how could this person exist? And I even saw somebody mention the fact that he should immediately go under a psych evaluation because he's probably in one, he's probably in one right now, right? That's probably where he is right now because it's so hard to think who would think like that, who thinks like that? Who okay? It's not even it's two part who thinks like that, and then who writes out their thoughts like that? Like you can think that way, I guess, but to take those thoughts from your mind and then put them in writing to another human being.

SPEAKER_01 27:04

I I don't know anybody that that had that is this bad, but maybe I'm just naive.

SPEAKER_00 27:10

Well, that's the thing. I think I think that's what this experience is telling us. Are we all naive? Are we that naive to think that this is so incredible to believe? But maybe, you know, maybe this is a wake-up call that we're all naive, right? Maybe there are people, more people among us that have this thought process that we never thought about. I don't know. I mean, it's like I said, for me, it the the words you could tell they just came out so easy.

SPEAKER_01 27:40

Yeah. Going back to what we were just talking about, do you think women are sometimes treated differently by law enforcement, either as suspects, victims, witnesses, or even professionals like lawyers?

SPEAKER_00 27:52

But I definitely believe that women are treated differently, even taking myself uh into consideration. I still get confused with whether or not I'm the interpreter on the case, and I could be in a whole suit, okay? I get confused on whether or not I'm the defendant, and I've been practicing almost 15 years. See you enough on TV. They can't think that I'd be handing out autographs right now, not my bar card to prove I'm a lawyer, right? So, yes, I've had cases, and this even happened in the short time when you know there was you know defense attorneys not taking cases. There were a lot of victims who just would jump up and down and just try to protect themselves and they were not being heard. And it's even not even so much that they weren't being heard, it's what they were conveying wasn't being received. How many times do we hear cases where victims just choose not to come forward for years because they feel like someone's not gonna believe me, or they're not gonna believe my version, or they're gonna ask me why did I wait so long? Or how come I didn't take pictures of my injuries? And it's like they're victims, like they're not in when they're in the moment, these are not things that are coming across their forefront. They're they're just thinking about how to live, how to survive.

SPEAKER_01 29:13

How would someone like Proctor treat someone? What if it was a situation where you know you're living with somebody, it's it's a girlfriend, boyfriend, or even husband and wife situation, right? They might not take it seriously, right?

SPEAKER_00 29:23

Fortunately, a lot of times you have cases where these victims in these cases will come forward and they'll just say, I've chosen not to pursue this case, I've chosen not to testify. Sometimes you use different situations where not that they're coached, but they're kind of being told, like, if you let this go away, your divorce will go better, you're or whatever the case may be, right? So they get these ideas in their head and imagine if they're getting it from the police. I I would not be, I'm not saying for sure, I absolutely don't know, but having these messages in the forefront now make you kind of wonder about some of these situations and whether or not these victims feel like they can really come forward and this trust that is being broken down for again, people who are public servants who are here to serve and protect, and you see messages like this. There, how does someone feel comfortable expressing themselves when there are jokes kind of going around?

SPEAKER_01 30:23

Is there any chance that Proctor might eventually down the road go to jail for any of this? That's a really good question. Take that one.

SPEAKER_00 30:32

I feel like there's so many layers to the to the Proctor. We'll call it the Proctor fiasco because at this point it's not just one case. I think it's so many moving cases. The biggest thing right now is these civil cases are going to uncover really police misconduct, but more so that it's the strategic tampering of evidence in criminal cases. I think that's what the civil cases on the criminal side are going to expose. For example, why did they use red solo cups to collect evidence in the case, right? Or, you know, again, Proctor saying that he's not rushing to the scene, or even there was even a message where he said he was gonna plant evidence on the cocaine. Yeah, he was gonna plant cocaine evidence against this person. So those issues, once they start boiling together and being brought together, I could see you know, a federal them reopening the federal investigation again into his conduct, but not only his conduct, his strategic tampering of criminal evidence that is a crime. Obstruction of justice is a crime, and that you can be charged with, and that you can go to jail for. Yes, yes. So I think it's it's bubbling over into a very large obstruction of justice charge that I wouldn't be surprised if the DOJ Department of Justice or some other larger entity doesn't really swoop in and try to bring these charges. And it may not happen now, it could happen a few years from now. You know, you could take any high-profile federal case. It takes the feds years, right, to build their cases because once they build that case, it's gonna be pretty close to airtight. But what these civil cases are doing is unraveling that obstruction of justice against Michael Proctor, Sean Good, and anybody else who really is getting tied into this fiasco.

SPEAKER_01 32:41

I agree. Do you think defense attorneys should be revisiting prior cases involving these investigators?

SPEAKER_00 32:47

Oh, they will, yeah, they will. I mean, this is I don't want to make them synonymous in any ways because we're talking really apples and oranges. That the first thing that I thought of was the Amy Ducan case cases. Remember that when the chemists and she the lab, and I mean, we were talking hundreds of cases that just got reopened because of this one individual, and courts will never leave, fortunately, you know, in our jurisprudence, even though it doesn't always come out that way. But if there is an injustice that has been had and there's an opportunity to reverse that injustice, the courts will definitely take a second look. And like I said, it is apples and oranges. But what I think about is the Annie Dukan cases, how it was one little string that unraveled all these other cases. And I will be very surprised if we don't start seeing a litany of cases being reopened where Procter was the lead investigator, whether it was a minority, whether it was a woman, whether it was someone who was of Jewish descent, if somebody who identified as LGBQ2. I mean, all of those cases, you if I was that attorney, or if I was sitting in jail, I would definitely want somebody to revisit and say, hey, Proctor was the lead investigator in this case. Do you mind taking a second look? Absolutely.

SPEAKER_01 34:25

There's also the case where Boston police officer Nicholas O'Malley was recently indicted and arrested for voluntary manslaughter. So prosecutors allege that body cam footage shows O'Malley shot Stevenson King multiple times as he was leaving the scene of a uh carjacking. The officer claims he was acting in self-defense to protect his partner. Do you see any parallels between that set of circumstances and the behavior exhibited by Proctor and Good?

SPEAKER_00 34:56

Body Wand Camera didn't always exist. Body Wand Camera came as a result of change after years and years of scrutiny of police officers. So just kind of tying that back into you know, what's this whole thing with Cam Reed and what can she effectuate? It could be something similar to that, but I'm gonna put that to the side for a second. I think El Mali case for right now, because obviously we're in the very early, early stages of the case. For right now, I think it's too premature to create a parallel between the two of them because we are talking about quite literally split second decisions, right? Obviously, no one except for the attorneys, really, and obviously O'Malley have seen the body on camera. Obviously, he lived through that, his partners who were there lived through that. The attorneys have seen the body on camera, but from what I can suspect, we're talking about split seconds where a decision was made, and obviously now that case is being tried. O'Malley was working, he was in full uniform, and there was a percipient call to this particular incident, right? So there was a call that a woman, her vehicle was carjacked, and they were actively pursuing this alleged carjacker. So I think it's a little bit different, and I think, and I'm not sure at that particular time they may or may have not known that Stephen King had a record. I'm not sure, but I still think that's a little bit different than what Proctor and Good's conversation is for a couple reasons. Number one, they're having a regular conversation. This is not in the line of duty, they weren't like at their work desks, they were just having these casual conversations amongst themselves, and these are thoughts that are kind of going through their mind every day, you know. Whereas though Malle case, he may have had, and I don't know, he may or may not have had some preconceived notion going into this event. I don't think he knew Stephen King. I don't think he knew really the circumstances. He's getting a radio call to go to an event, Proctor in Good situation.

SPEAKER_01 37:09

Or if there's ultimately some sort of wrongful death civil suit, which is usually after the criminal trial, do you think you'd try to see if there's anything in the background or personal cell phones? Do you think you well?

SPEAKER_00 37:22

I think I think again, just as a result of the Procter in Good situation, and again, obviously, we have O'Malley's uh defense team and the prosecutors on this case are extremely, extremely well-versed. So I can already see that because of this culture of these text messages coming out, somebody is going to at least try to confiscate his phone or try to create that culture. I think the prosecution is going to try to paint this picture that they came into this crisis situation with a bias, pretty much based on the location, based upon the uh the fact that Stephen King was already black, based upon the fact that he was allegedly a known criminal. He has this record. So they're gonna bring in these biases and try to color the fact that these officers went in with this intention that you know they shouldn't have. The messages that we're seeing now in the good in the proctor conversation came from a FBI investigation, right? It wasn't yeah, and then it was subpoenaed through uh Rosemary Scabaccio and her team for her case. So to the extent that the state and Commonwealth of Massachusetts will subpoena O'Malley's personal phone for their case, I don't know. I mean, now they may have they may try to make an argument. I think his defense team is gonna say he's not relevant. I think they would have to find some other showing. Maybe he had Facebook posts or Instagram posts where it would lead to them try to subpoena his cell phone and his messages, but I think they need to have a greater connection before they just start subpoenaing his phone. But yeah, again, I won't see be surprised if it doesn't start happening more frequently because again, this we're talking about a culture now, right? We're talking about regular and systemic issues happening, you know, allegedly in the police department, which is gonna continue to come more to light.

SPEAKER_01 39:23

Oh, exactly. You know, I think listeners might be interested in, and I'm gonna ask you this as a defense attorney, how would you go about making that showing in order to get somebody's cell phone records? And let's say you have a criminal defendant and you have an inkling that the lead officer who arrested your client, let's say your client was a gay person, and you have a uh you you heard through the grapevine that that particular officer was anti-gay. What would you need for a showing in order to get cell phone records like that?

SPEAKER_00 39:57

Yeah, there's actually a really uh frequently used case. It's called Commonwealth the Long, where essentially the essence of that case is it gives a defense attorney the right to do further investigation and have a hearing on whether or not the actions of the officer in their particular case were racially motivated or motivated in any particular way outside of their police duty. So a lot of the defense attorneys, especially if Roxbury, Dorchester, these are popular areas where you could say statistically, these individuals are arrested more likely than other counterparts. A lot of defense attorneys use what's called a long motion to pierce into whether or not the activities of the police officer in that particular case were biased against their clients simply because of XYZ ABC. And it goes back to what I was explaining before about getting the statistical analysis of arrests in that area or convictions in that area. So Commonwealth V long is a tool that defense attorneys use today in Massachusetts in order to pierce that bubble of whether or not there was police misconduct uh involving the arrest of their client.

SPEAKER_01 41:21

Oh, thank you. That's very informative. And what reforms would you like to see emerge from the whole situation that we're looking at now with the texts?

SPEAKER_00 41:31

I think, and it's not even so much what I would see. I think it just may just happen. We're going to see a lot more transparency in the way of police culture. Um, I think we're gonna see a lot more accountability. I think the difficult part in this particular case is the other side to that coin is you know, this blue wall that people talk about where officers kind of stick behind each other and stick together, and it's kind of like a us versus them scenario. But what I suspect won't happen is people are not gonna drag other people down. Like, you know, I'm not gonna go down in flames with you as easily as it happened before. So I think what we're gonna see is definitely a lot more transparency, definitely a lot more training. I think that's definitely something that's gonna come out of this. I think we're gonna see a lot more apologies, public apologies. I think we're gonna see this every day. And state police were right on top of that. That hey, you know, we we denounced this, but I think we'll see, you know, what comes from this. I I hope that it happens sooner rather than later, because unfortunately, I'll go out on a limb and say that this is an ongoing issue across the board. We don't know where, we don't know when, but it's not an isolated proctor and good situation. So hopefully sooner rather than later, we will start to see some change.

SPEAKER_01 43:02

I hope so. I really do. And I do feel for all the good police officers out there, yeah, yeah. And I have to believe that the good outweigh the bad.

SPEAKER_00 43:10

The other thing is, too, we need police, right? We are not a society that unfortunately can police ourselves yet. We're not in the position to do that. So we need, for lack of better words, law and order, right? So we we need that as a society, and I think that it's troubling that we have to get to this point at this level, but it will hopefully bring out more of the good and more of the people who will say, Yeah, you know, I don't stand by that. Or in your example, when you know the person that you knew signed up and made a joke that they were terminated very quickly, that this that the breakdown of this culture happens sooner rather than later, I think is is the mission, right? I think that's what it's all about.

SPEAKER_01 44:00

And so it is probably happening on different levels, like like I saw. Yeah. So definitely. So people have to be careful and people have to change their general attitudes about other people as well.

SPEAKER_00 44:12

Absolutely. I mean, it's 2026 at some point. We have to to cohesively coexist better as a society because we have so many other things we have to deal with and worry about that. The the human nature of dealing with people really shouldn't be the number one top battle that we're dealing with every day. We have other battles to be dealing with, especially not with people that we hold accountable in these types of positions.

SPEAKER_01 44:42

Right. Well, well said. Well, Morgiette, I really appreciate you being on here with me. Thank you so much.

SPEAKER_00 44:49

Of course.

SPEAKER_01 44:50

Didn't even notice the time go, but I I don't I can't see the time without my glasses, so I'd have to put them on and I don't have my watch, so I have no idea.

SPEAKER_00 45:00

It's well, it looks like it's been about 47 minutes. Perfect. Yeah, I know, it's really good.

SPEAKER_01 45:07

That's perfect. I knew you'd be a fabulous guest, and thank you, but also thank you for all the listeners out there and for all of you who also listen to the show after it goes from being live to just being on YouTube and the various channels. So it I appreciate all the comments, and I do try to answer them all over the week. Have a great night, everyone. Thank you so much for watching the Margaret McLean show.