Journalist ordered to turn over notes, communications around murder trial

Boston magazine contributing editor Gretchen Voss was subpoenaed on Nov. 21, 2024, for confidential newsgathering materials in connection with a murder trial in Dedham, Massachusetts. After initially upholding the motion in December, the judge partially reversed the order almost two months later.

In June and July 2023, Voss interviewed Karen Read, who stands accused of the murder of her boyfriend in a case that has captured national attention.

Prosecutors first attempted in January 2024 to compel the disclosure of the journalist’s notes and recordings of the interviews. Massachusetts does not have a formally recognized reporter’s shield law protecting journalists from being forced to disclose newsgathering materials.

Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone denied the prosecutor’s request for the off-the-record portions of the interviews and notes handwritten by Voss, but ordered her to produce copies of Read’s recorded on-the-record comments. Voss provided the redacted recordings.

The case against Read ended in a mistrial in July and was scheduled for a retrial in early 2025.

The state renewed its request for the notes and unredacted interview recordings in November 2024, ahead of the second trial. Prosecutors also requested copies of any texts, emails or voicemail communications Voss had with Read.

“The defendant made a tactical decision to be interviewed. There is no legal justification enabling a defendant to pick and choose what statements can and should be disseminated to the public,” the motion said. “The ‘off the record’ promise has no legal import, and this Commonwealth does not recognize the private agreement between the defendant and the news sources.”

Cannone granted the government’s request on Dec. 5 and ordered Voss to produce the documents by Jan. 2, 2025. Voss filed a motion for reconsideration regarding her notes, writing in an affidavit that forcing her to turn them over would jeopardize her credibility with sources in the future and her ability to work as an investigative journalist.

“Obtaining information from sources ‘off the record’ is a normal—and critical—part of my work,” Voss wrote. “Keeping my word on this is critical to maintaining credibility and trust, and thus maintaining source relationships while not intervening with the flow of important information to the public.”

Robert Bertsche, an attorney representing Voss and Boston magazine, argued in the motion that courts have cautioned against making journalists “discovery agents for the government.”

“What is the Commonwealth seeking now from the taped interviews? Exactly what it forswore earlier: the statements made by Karen Read’s attorneys during those interviews,” Bertsche wrote. “The Commonwealth is commandeering a journalist merely in the hopes that the journalist’s records will prove useful to its case.”

Cannone ordered Voss to provide the notes for “in camera review” — where the judge privately views disputed materials to determine relevance — by Jan. 13, and Voss complied.

During a Jan. 31 hearing, Cannone partially reversed her decision and ruled that Voss would not be compelled to turn over her off-the-record notes, the Boston Herald reported. “Voss has articulated a compelling argument that requiring disclosure of the notes poses a greater risk to the free flow of information than the other materials produced,” Cannone wrote.

The judge ruled, however, that the unredacted copies of her on-the-record interviews with Read — which had excluded off-the-record comments from both Read and her attorneys — must be turned over to prosecutors.

Neither Voss nor Bertsche responded to requests for comment.