The court, residing Judge Peter Krupp, took up defense access to former MSP Trooper Michael Proctor’s communications (the “Proctor files”) and the defense’s push tying those materials to discovery and dismissal issues.

Joint Hearing Context

The hearing was consolidated with the King and Johnson cases, since all involved defense teams are seeking access to Trooper Michael Proctor’s cell phone data and related communications.

Federal Coordination

The U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed to file a motion to modify the protective order governing the “Proctor files.”

Non-grand jury materials: The Norfolk DA’s Office would be permitted to review and disclose anything qualifying as Rule 14 (Brady/exculpatory or impeachment) material without further federal approval.

Grand jury materials: Prosecutors may review, but if they find Rule 14 material, they must go back to federal court (Judge Casper) for authorization before disclosure.

The US Attorney’s Office also agreed to a tolling arrangement (pausing the destruction deadline) until Judge Casper rules, eliminating the imminent risk that records would be destroyed by the Monday deadline.

Judge’s Concern

Judge Krupp emphasized that if Judge Casper rejected the protective order modification outright, the existing order would expire and the materials could be lost. Counsel assured her that the government wouldn’t destroy materials before Casper’s ruling.

Key Points

Defense gets a key slice of the Proctor files. Prosecutors told the court that all Proctor chats/communications from the Karen Read case have been provided to Walshe and other Norfolk defendants whose matters involved Proctor.

The judge allowed Walshe’s team to review those communications for potential use in his case. The fate of other federally controlled materials remains with a federal judge, with a destruction deadline looming the following Monday (Aug. 18).

The Proctor communications became a flashpoint in the Read case; Walshe’s team argues any bias or misconduct evidence is Brady/Rule 14 material that could aid his defense. The court’s permission to review those chats gives the defense fresh avenues before trial, while the broader “Proctor files” remain constrained by federal orders.

This was more than a routine discovery fight—the federal protective order is the choke point, and Judge Casper’s ruling will decide how much of Proctor’s material makes it into Walshe’s (and King’s) cases.

The defense scored a procedural win: DA’s office now has access to review both categories of material, with an immediate right to disclose the non-grand jury items.

Timing is critical: Walshe’s October trial date loomed over the hearing, with both sides acknowledging they need resolution before jury selection.

Just days later, Judge Freniere handed down a seven-page decision denying Walshe’s first motion to dismiss the murder indictment. Defense’s second motion to dismiss was filed on August 12 relating to the Proctor Files.

The defense had claimed that there was insufficient evidence presented to the grand jury to sustain an indictment for murder in the first degree. A non-evidentiary hearing was conducted on July 24th. Freniere concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to warrant the indictment.

The prosecution’s case remains intact—Judge Freniere continues to signal that enough credible evidence was presented to a grand jury, including motive, opportunity, and planning.

Proctor-related materials: Defense access has expanded, but full disclosure remains clouded by ongoing federal constraints.

The timeline hasn’t budged—jury selection is still slated for October 20, 2025, though these rulings could reshape pretrial strategy.

Expect a court decision on the defense 2nd motion to dismiss.

A status conference was scheduled for Aug. 28, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. with flexibility to move it sooner if Judge Casper issues a ruling. All parties agreed to notify the court within 24 hours of any federal decision.

Defense counsel for Walshe, Larry Tipton, flagged urgency given Walshe’s October trial date, pushing for expedited handling of any discovery delays.

The Commonwealth assured the court it was “mindful” of the October trial timeline and pressing the US Attorney’s Office to act quickly.

Expect additional motion practice on dismissal/discovery and clarifications on what, if anything, from the federal cache can be shared before trial.

With dismissal motions quashed and evidence access partially broadened, things are shaping up for a tense courthouse showdown this fall. Judges, jurors, and strategy alike will soon see everything that’s been at play—all of which you’ll want to watch closely.

Related Articles