Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveKevin O'Hara
Testimony Impact
Lt. Kevin O'Hara is a Massachusetts State Police Special Emergency Response Team officer who commanded the evidence search at 34 Fairview Road nearly ten hours after O'Keefe's body was discovered. His team recovered taillight pieces and a sneaker near the curb during blizzard conditions. In Trial 1, he described the sneaker as completely buried; in Trial 2, he said he did not study item depth and identified only a couple of taillight pieces as touching asphalt. O'Hara testified in both trials, with his account of the search conditions, approximate item proximity, and the absence of any follow-up search forming a contested part of the physical evidence record.
Challenges & Responses
What attorneys challenged during examination and how the witness responded.
The defense challenged O'Hara on the Daily Journal's missing dispatch timestamp, confronted him with prior testimony characterizing the evidence as found within 'a few inches' of one another, and noted that his final mission report described the victim as 'hit and dragged by a vehicle' — language he acknowledged came from information provided to the team rather than his own determination. O'Hara also initially deflected before conceding the scene should have been secured.
Trial 1 vs Trial 2
In Trial 2, Alan Jackson conducted the cross-examination in place of Yannetti, and the defense added a recross examination — a phase absent from Trial 1. Jackson's recross zeroed in on the narrow scope of findings: only a small cluster of evidence recovered across 60 feet of searching, and the fact that O'Hara had been told the vehicle was already secured before he arrived on scene. The core cross themes — delayed SERT activation, unsecured scene, absence of follow-up — remained consistent between trials, but Trial 2 also saw the prosecution's redirect (by Brennan rather than Lally) address scene integrity and outside interference more directly than in Trial 1.
Notable Quotes From The Record
“He said they were conducting a death investigation in the town of Canton and he was looking for SERT assistance with an evidence search.”
Establishes how SERT was activated and the nature of the investigation as communicated to the search team.
“They were all found at ground level.”
All evidence items were at ground level beneath undisturbed snow, relevant to establishing they were deposited before the snowfall.
“No, we did not see anything. So, like I said, it was all fresh, undisturbed snow once we got past where the plow had cleared up to.”
No footprints or tracks in the snow where evidence was found, indicating the area had not been disturbed since the snowfall.
“I told him that there was a good chance we did not find everything.”
O'Hara acknowledged limitations of the search due to conditions, explaining why additional evidence might remain and offering to return.
“The sneaker was completely buried. It wasn't until we started digging through the snow that we found the sneaker.”
The victim's sneaker was fully buried under snow, consistent with being deposited before or during the storm.
“I'd prefer that it was secured.”
The witness concedes the scene should have been secured, after initially deflecting the question multiple times.
“As you would mark them on the GPS, they were marking almost directly on top of each other — and we knew that was going to — and they certainly were not being marked feet away from each other, several feet.”
Confirms all recovered evidence was found in an extremely concentrated area, relevant to how the evidence came to be there.
“No, he did not.”
O'Hara answered that Proctor did not call him to return for a further search on six specified dates.
“That's a report that gets generated through our Mission Manager software, so it creates a little bit more detailed response.”
Establishes that more detailed documentation exists beyond the Daily Journal that cross-examination highlighted as sparse.
“It's the GeoTab GPS on the cruisers — automatic vehicle locator system.”
Confirms precise electronic records of arrival times exist, countering defense implications about timeline gaps.
“Sneaker was flush up against the curb and it was inverted, upside down.”
Describes the position of the victim's sneaker, a key piece of physical evidence.
“Couple of the pieces were found at ground level touching the asphalt.”
Records O'Hara's observation that a couple of taillight pieces were at ground level touching the asphalt.
“That whole search area was fresh undisturbed snow as we moved through the area and no one moved past our line.”
Describes O'Hara's testimony about movement control and snow conditions within the marked search grid as the team moved through it.
“I did provide that to Lieutenant Tully — told him there was a good chance we did not locate everything that evening and we offered to return at a later date or time at his request.”
O'Hara said he told Tully there was a good chance the team had not located everything that evening and offered to return at Tully's request; he separately testified that the SERT team did not go back.
“Uh, there was no police presence on scene, sir.”
Records O'Hara's observation that there was no police presence when SERT arrived. When Jackson asked how long the scene had been unsecured before then, O'Hara said he did not know.
“We've never been out for an evidence search in this specific type of conditions, but we have done missing person searches.”
Concession that this was the team's first evidence search in blizzard conditions, undercutting expertise on evidence recovery methodology.
“He asked if we were here for what happened earlier. We replied yes and he turned and went back inside the residence.”
An unidentified adult male from 34 Fairview Road had knowledge of the incident and made contact with the search team.
“I believe I said within a few inches or a foot away. Yes, sir.”
All recovered evidence was clustered in a very small area, a point Jackson emphasized through prior testimony impeachment.
“I asked him if he had a photograph that we could look at, just to see how large of a piece we were looking for, sir.”
The SERT team was searching for taillight pieces without ever seeing the damaged vehicle or a photograph of it.
“Maybe 10 seconds, sir.”
Minimizes the significance of the person emerging from 34 Fairview, a point raised during cross-examination.
“I told him there was a good chance we did not locate all the evidence. Asked him if he wanted us to come back at a later date.”
Establishes O'Hara proactively flagged the search as incomplete and offered follow-up, countering any suggestion SERT considered the job done.
“The area we searched was fresh, undisturbed snow.”
O'Hara described the searched area as fresh, undisturbed snow when he arrived; this was his arrival observation, not a conclusion about pre-arrival access or when any item was deposited.
“Only 99% of it, sir. As soon as we got to the grass and realized we couldn't clear it properly, my main focus was on that street, just again because I was concerned about the plow coming through at a later time.”
Explains the strategic decision to prioritize street over grass — evidence preservation before plowing, not laziness or incompleteness.
Key Moments
- O'Hara said a couple of taillight pieces were at ground level touching asphalt and that, once the search area was marked, no one moved forward of the team's line; he assessed the team might not have found everything and did not measure item depth or know the body's precise location.
- In Trial 1, O'Hara described the sneaker as completely buried and said it was found only after the team began digging through the snow. He did not offer an opinion that its burial established when the sneaker was deposited.
- On cross-examination in both trials, O'Hara acknowledged that the scene had been left unsecured and unguarded for approximately ten hours between 7:50 a.m. and the SERT team's arrival, and conceded he would have preferred the scene been secured.
- O'Hara told the lead investigator, Trooper Proctor, at the conclusion of the search that there was 'a good chance we did not find everything' and offered to return — a follow-up that never occurred, which the defense highlighted in closing cross-examination.
- In Trial 1, O'Hara said three taillight pieces were GPS-stamped, explaining that nearby plotted points would clutter the map and that GPS readings had a margin of error. In Trial 2, he described the items as approximately inches to feet apart by eye, rejected the suggestion that all were within one foot, and said his team did not measure exact inter-item distances. The roughly 60-foot figure described the marked search area, not a GPS-confirmed evidence cluster.