Ruling: Judge will allow such an order if needed. No action now.
Impact: Judge is being proactive about jury integrity, but no current threat.

Judge added defense edits.

Jurors will fill out questionnaires privately and hand them directly to the judge.

They will be warned not to use social media or consume news for the entire trial.

Impact:  This judge is laser-focused on neutralizing outside influence — great for ensuring a clean jury, but also signals she knows this case is high-profile.

 

Individual voir dire.

Whisper technology for strikes (to avoid jurors overhearing).

Empaneling will happen in her courtroom.

Impact:
She’s keeping control of the environment. Also means voir dire will be slower and more thorough.

Judge wants both sides to review Commonwealth’s proposed instructions.

Defense objected to some; will argue later.

Defense will provide summaries of expert testimony by Wednesday.

Impact:  Walshe’s team must reveal more of their hand. Judge is ensuring no trial surprises.

Ruling: Allowed over defense objection.
Judge’s reasoning: “If you hold up a chart in front of 16 jurors, I need to see it first.”
Impact: This is major. The defense loses the element of surprise.
Prosecution gets to see their opening chalks in advance.
Shows judge is risk-averse; she will not allow theatrics or manipulation.

Ruling: Defense agrees to follow rules; no action.
Impact: Defense may try implying someone else killed Anna — but must pass strict evidentiary thresholds.

 

Defense objected.
Judge’s ruling: Observations of Anna with her children are allowed (limited, not emotional floodgates).

No specific “acts” of being a great mother; only general observations.

Defense can object during testimony.

Statements suggesting she was a loving, devoted mother will be allowed — within limits.

Impact: This subtly helps the prosecution, because it paints Anna as someone unlikely to voluntarily vanish.

Ruling: Allowed.
Impact: Simple formality — witnesses can identify Walshe in the courtroom.

Ruling: Judge will not allow defense to open on this or use it unless cleared first.
Impact: Limits a common defense strategy: “sloppy investigation.”
They must get permission before accusing officers of misconduct.

Ruling: Allowed.
Impact: Jury sees images of devices instead of bulky hardware.

Ruling: Deferred — judge will later go line-by-line and rule.
Impact: This is massive.
These interviews could be hugely damaging for Walshe… or softened, depending on edits.
Judge shows caution — wants more briefing.

Ruling: Allowed.
Impact: Shows how Anna was reported missing.

Ruling: Video is OUT (too inflammatory).

Screenshots allowed.

Photos allowed only in limited number and “autopsy photo” rule applies — minimal, non-emotional, cropped if necessary.

Impact: This is a big win for the defense. She is shutting down emotional manipulation.

Ruling: Partially allowed.

Jurors may hear that Walshe had restrictions due to federal case.

BUT they may not hear that he was on electronic monitoring, GPS, or details that imply dangerousness.

Judge wants a stipulation.

Impact: Prosecution will be allowed to argue motive (i.e., federal sentencing pressure) — but judge is limiting prejudice dramatically.

Ruling: Allowed in part — with major limitations:

Statements showing Anna’s state of mind are admissible.

Statements used to show Walshe had motive are admissible.

Statements describing his bad acts are admissible only with limiting instruction.

Statements about the affair are allowed — EXCEPT:

Her claim that she “didn’t know what Brian would do if he found out” is OUT (too prejudicial).

Mutlu’s testimony must be cleaned up: only statements Anna told him directly.

Doctrine of “verbal completeness” means defense gets to bring in balancing statements (e.g., “She wanted the family together”).

Impact:  This is one of the most important rulings in the entire hearing.
The judge is giving prosecution ammo for motive — but keeping out the most explosive statements.

Ruling: Not fully ruled; will be addressed item-by-item.
Defense argues that:

Walshe never saw the Fastow texts.

They are hearsay.

They are prejudicial.

Judge wants evidence that Walshe saw the messages before admitting them.

Impact:  A huge chunk of prosecution’s motive theory hangs on whether Walshe knew Anna was seeing another man.
This ruling could reshape the trial.

Ruling: Judge is reviewing binders; wants lists of specific searches prosecution intends to use.
Important revelations:

New forensic analysis shows much more data than grand jury saw.

Example: The “cheating wife threesome impregnated” search from Dec. 27.

Judge’s position:

Porn part irrelevant.

“Cheating wife” portion may be relevant to Walshe’s knowledge of affair.

Impact:  Search history was already damning — now it’s expanded.
Judge will allow much of it, but with careful filtering of sensational content.

Ruling: Contract may be entered into evidence; judge notes prosecution must connect relevance.

Judge notes mother was not listed as witness and must stay out of room.

Impact:  Prosecution wants to imply Walshe knew about the private investigator or was suspicious.
Judge is hesitant — but not shutting it down entirely.

Ruling: Allowed — jurors get blank calendars for note-taking.
Defense may also add items if necessary.

Ruling: Allowed — prosecution may not claim he definitively knew.
They may only lay breadcrumbs for jury inference.

Impact:  Prevents prosecution from making bold claims without proof.

Ruling: Granted — witnesses must stick to factual observations.
Impact:  Prevents emotional speculation or “expert-like” leaps from investigators.

Ruling: Pending. Judge needs more briefing.
She DOES allow jury to know Miner was present at interviews — but not necessarily what she said.
Defense very concerned about prejudice.

Impact: This could be huge.
If Miner’s back-and-forth comments stay in, they shape the tone of the interviews.
Judge is treading carefully.