Has Norfolk County District Attorney Michael P. Morrissey Committed Ethical Violations in His Handling of the Karen Read Case?

On Friday afternoon, August 25, 2023, Attorney Michael P. Morrissey, the elected District Attorney of Norfolk County, Massachusetts, took a step that he stated was unprecedented; he issued a public statement in the form of an online video regarding a case his office has been prosecuting over the past year and a half (Commonwealth v. Karen Read, Norfolk Superior Court docket no. 2282-CR-0117). He spent most of his time in the video talking to the public about his view of the facts of the case. Attorney Morrissey’s remarks were not even close to being narrowly tailored, as he seemed to be trying to convince the public that there is no reason to think the defendant is anything but guilty. Media outlets in Massachusetts picked up on Attorney Morrissey’s public statements and repeated his view of the facts, potentially poisoning the jury pool against the defendant. Attorney Morrissey therefore appears to have violated Section (f)(1) of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8, which states: “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall … refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.” There is no Norfolk County exception in this ethical rule.

The proper and ethical role of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not simply to win the case. Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8, Comment [1] makes that very point: “A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.” What this comment to the ethical rule means, in part, is that a criminal investigation should not become one-sided with blinders on once charges are filed.

Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(g), which Attorney Morrissey also may have violated and may continue to be violating, states: “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall … not avoid pursuit of evidence because the prosecutor believes it will damage the prosecution’s case or aid the accused.” The defense in this case has recently raised potentially troubling issues that a prosecutor seems to have an ethical duty to look into in the pursuit of justice (as opposed to the pursuit of just trying to win the case). If Attorney Morrissey had actually taken the time and effort to look into the potentially troubling issues (which could possibly indicate that the wrong person is being prosecuted) and found them insignificant, he was in his online video rant effectively and unethically announcing the results of his investigation. A Norfolk County courtroom was the proper and ethical place for such disclosures, not an online video that, having been a politician just about his entire adult life, he should have known large media outlets would pick up on and amplify, to the detriment of the defendant.

Attorney Morrissey’s online video made it sound like he had simply dismissed issues raised by the defense as baseless conspiracy theories. Stubborn, lazy ignorance is not a good trait in anyone, but it would seem to be an especially bad trait for a powerful prosecutor to have in a murder case, and Massachusetts ethical rules frown on that trait. If his office did not with an open mind look into at least some of the issues raised by the defense, then Attorney Michael P. Morrissey may well have already violated his ethical duty as a prosecutor to seek justice.