Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveElizabeth Little
Courtroom Impact
Elizabeth Little represented Karen Read as a defense attorney in both trials. In Trial 1, she cross-examined medical and forensic witnesses and members of the Albert family, using reports, prior statements, and other records in her questions. She conducted the direct examination of defense forensic pathologist Dr. Frank Sheridan, who gave opinions concerning O'Keefe's injuries. In Trial 2, she cross-examined a hospital laboratory witness about accreditation, methodology, and potential interferences.
Notable Quotes From The Record
“You were also lying next to a first responder, correct?”
Little's first-responder question preceded a separate question about whether either Albert went outside. Nicole answered that they did not because they were asleep and unaware until Jennifer entered the bedroom.
“This interview actually took place at your family's defense attorney's office correct?”
Establishes the controlled, legally protected setting of the first interview — 18 months after events.
“But you did not see a 220-pound man lying in the snow in your front yard. Is that something that you saw?”
Little juxtaposed Albert Jr.'s statement that he could see tire tracks in the snow with his statement that he did not see a man lying in the front yard.
“From the neck down, he did not have a single broken bone, right?”
Little asked whether O'Keefe had a single broken bone from the neck down. Rice declined to accept that characterization; he later confirmed only that he had not reported a fracture, explaining that emergency resuscitation limited attention to observations not pertinent to it.
“And when you get a test result from a serum test, that information does not establish when alcohol was consumed. Correct?”
Establishes a critical limitation — the test cannot show whether Karen Read was intoxicated at the time of the alleged incident versus hours later at the hospital.
“And so you're just assuming the accuracy of a single test that was performed by the hospital.”
Frames the entire extrapolation as built on unverified hospital results outside forensic accreditation standards.
“If Miss Read drank alcohol after 12:45 a.m. and before her blood was drawn at 9:08 a.m., your entire calculation would be invalid?”
Final question establishes a clear condition that would completely invalidate the prosecution's BAC evidence.
“You said that you were given 12:45 as the time that you based your analysis on, and clearly that was not something that was provided to you by my client, right?”
Records Roberts's confirmation that Read did not provide the time assumption used in his analysis.
“That was something that was provided to you from a police report, correct?”
Records Little's question proposing a police-report source; the examination ended without Roberts answering it.
“From the neck down, he did not have a single broken bone — again, aside from those CPR-related injuries you discussed — correct?”
Establishes the absence of lower-body injuries that would be expected in a pedestrian collision with a large SUV.
“And all of those results were negative.”
Little stated that the additional drug-test results were negative, and Faller agreed.
Key Moments
- During her Trial 1 Day 9 cross-examination of Nicole Albert, Little asked whether Albert had mentioned Colin Albert to Trooper Proctor; Albert said she had not. The court sustained an objection to Little's follow-up questions about Sergeant Lank and whether naming Colin would prompt an interview. Little also raised two Jennifer McCabe phone-call entries; Albert acknowledged the entries but denied answering the calls. The defense used the questioning to advance its theory that the family withheld information.
- In a Trial 1 Day 18 recross, Little asked Dr. Nicholas Roberts whether Read had provided the 12:45 AM time used in his calculation. Roberts said Read had not. Little then asked whether the time came from a police report, but that question received no answer before the examination ended.
- During her Trial 1 Day 18 cross-examination of emergency physician Dr. Justin Rice, Little showed him his ER note, which did not mention a vehicle, and asked about injuries and fractures he documented. Rice rejected the characterization that the documentation established the full scope of O'Keefe's injuries or broken bones, explaining that resuscitation priorities limited observations not pertinent to that effort.
- In Trial 1 Day 29, Little cross-examined medical examiner Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello. Scordi-Bello said she was not a reconstruction or biomechanics expert and could not offer a vehicle-related opinion; she also said the cause of the arm scratches was unknown. She described as a possibility that facial injuries could result from a punch, agreed bruising on the backs of hands could be consistent with defensive wounds, and said it was possible for a punch to cause unconsciousness and a backward fall. The court sustained an objection to Little's broader question combining several injuries.
- In directing Dr. Frank Sheridan's testimony during Trial 1 Day 30, Little navigated multiple sustained objections by methodically relaying proper foundation before eliciting Sheridan's core opinions: that O'Keefe's arm injuries were inconsistent with being struck by a vehicle and more consistent with an animal attack, and that his fatal head injury would have rendered him immediately unconscious — directly countering the prosecution's vehicle-strike theory.