Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveMaureen Hartnett
Testimony Impact
Maureen Hartnett is a forensic scientist with the Massachusetts State Police criminalistics unit who examined Karen Read's black Lexus SUV at the Canton Police Department and conducted laboratory analysis of John O'Keefe's clothing items. Her testimony covers her inspection of the vehicle's rear passenger area — where she documented a dent, scratches, and a broken tail light — as well as blood screening, trace evidence collection, and damage classification on O'Keefe's sweatshirt, jeans, T-shirt, and sneakers. She testified in both trials, with cross-examination in the second trial expanding significantly to challenge evidence handling, chain of custody, and the absence of biological transfer evidence linking the vehicle to a pedestrian strike.
Challenges & Responses
What attorneys challenged during examination and how the witness responded.
Hartnett's credibility was challenged on multiple fronts in both trials. In Trial 1, Jackson established that she had recorded the wrong date for her sallyport visit, could not recall how many glass pieces she collected or whether she photographed the debris, and pressed chain-of-custody questions about items submitted on March 14 or later. Hartnett said she personally lacked data about their pre-laboratory locations, and the court sustained his broader no-chain question. In Trial 2, Alessi confronted her with photographs suggesting she misidentified evidence stickers and questioned co-mingled clothing debris submitted without separation or individual documentation.
Trial 1 vs Trial 2
In Trial 1, cross-examination by Alan Jackson focused primarily on documentation gaps, the incorrect date entry, the absence of debris photography, and his chain-of-custody challenge concerning items submitted on March 14 or later. Hartnett said she personally lacked data about where those items had been before laboratory acceptance, and the court sustained Jackson's broader no-chain question. In Trial 2, Robert Alessi pursued a broader challenge: he established that no biological testing was performed on taillight fragments, confronted Hartnett with before-and-after photographs of the hair on the quarter panel, and dwelt extensively on the co-mingling of clothing evidence from two shirts into a single submission without separation or individual documentation. The Trial 2 redirect by Hank Brennan also introduced a more explicit suggestion — not present in Trial 1 — that evidence could have been planted on the taillight.
Notable Quotes From The Record
“I noted there was a dent in the trunk door, there were scratches on the rear bumper, and there was a broken tail light.”
Documents the three categories of damage observed on the rear passenger area of Karen Read's Lexus.
“Due to the case history, there was no visible red-brown stains on the item, as well as the fact there was a very limited surface area for me to sample from. In addition, I was informed that the car had been towed through a blizzard.”
Explains why no blood screening was performed on the tail light — conservative decision to preserve limited biological material for DNA testing.
“I determined the hair was consistent with a human hair with a root.”
Establishes the hair recovered from the vehicle's rear quarter panel was human, with a root suitable for DNA testing.
“It was told to me that potentially the victim may have been bitten by a dog during an incident, so I was taking swabs of that area to be sent out to determine if there's any dog DNA on that area.”
Introduces the dog bite theory as a line of investigation, with swabs collected from damage areas on O'Keefe's right sleeve for canine DNA analysis.
“I performed blood screening test as well as a blood confirmatory test.”
Confirms red-brown stains on O'Keefe's sweatshirt were tested and confirmed as blood through the standard two-step process.
“One of the sneakers was recovered from 34 Fairview Road and one of the sneakers was recovered from the hospital.”
Establishes the two sneakers were found at different locations, relevant to reconstructing O'Keefe's movements.
“I saw visible red-brown stains, which I screened for blood. I also performed a confirmatory test for blood. There was one stain on the orange T-shirt, however, that was too small to perform that confirmatory test, so for that instance I noted that the stain was quantity limited and I preserved it after the positive screening test instead of performing a confirmatory test, in order to preserve enough material for any DNA analysis.”
Demonstrates forensic judgment in preserving limited biological material for DNA over confirmatory testing.
“As far as the sneakers, given their dark color, I did not see any visible red-brown stains on the black area of the sneakers, so I used an alternate light source to aid in visualizing any potential blood on those sneakers. With that alternate light source, I tested several stains on the sneakers, one of which screened positive for blood.”
Shows methodological rigor in using alternate light source on dark-colored evidence where visual inspection alone was insufficient.
“I did not see any visible stains or tissue on the vehicle.”
Hartnett testified that she saw no visible stains or tissue on the SUV; she also reported negative blood screening from specified undercarriage areas.
“DNA testing was not done on those swabs.”
Blood from Solo cups collected at the scene was never DNA tested, leaving the source of the blood unconfirmed.
“To my recollection, they were just sitting on the bumper, yes.”
Hartnett said the fragments were sitting on the bumper surface rather than embedded; after Jackson's 60-mile/blizzard premise, she said she did not know when the glass reached the bumper.
“Correct, because they were housed together, stored together.”
Witness concedes that co-mingling of the two shirts in one bag makes it impossible to determine the source of any debris collected.
“I personally do not have any data that would indicate where those items of evidence were prior to them being accepted into the lab.”
Hartnett testified that she personally lacked data indicating where the items were before lab acceptance; she also agreed that non-sallyport items discussed were submitted March 14 or later.
“I took them from what would have been the exposed area of the tail light, should the tail light have been intact. So I did not collect from any of the interior portions of the tail light that would have been protected by the exterior plastic piece.”
Specifies that the DNA swabs were collected from the exposed area of the tail light rather than interior portions protected by the exterior plastic piece.
“Not to my recollection, no.”
Hartnett did not recall seeing frozen snow or ice on the vehicle's exterior when she examined it.
“I noticed there was some damage to the rear passenger area of the vehicle.”
Initial observation establishing the focus area of vehicle damage relevant to the case theory.
“Those were negative.”
Blood screening on the vehicle undercarriage was negative — a key fact for the defense challenging the pedestrian-strike theory.
“It had missing pieces, but nothing was loose on the tail light housing itself at the time that I collected it.”
Establishes the condition of the tail light at collection, relevant to chain of custody questions about loose pieces found later in the evidence bag.
“This item was quantity limited. The swab itself was quantity limited, meaning that they'd have to use up the whole swab in order to run DNA analysis.”
Explains that the quantity-limited swab was cut up for further testing and that the whole swab would be required to run DNA analysis.
“That scraping was combined with the scrapings from the sweatshirt.”
Debris from the orange T-shirt and sweatshirt were combined into a single submission (item 7-18), a packaging decision relevant to trace evidence analysis.
“That would be outside the scope of my expertise. I don't make any conclusions on injuries on the person.”
Witness cannot connect arm wounds to anything on the vehicle, limiting the prosecution's ability to link vehicle damage to victim injuries through this witness.
“Correct. At this time, those were not tested for blood at all. So I couldn't confirm that they were blood, and no additional testing was done.”
The solo-cup stains were not confirmed as blood, and the swabs received no additional testing. Hartnett returned the cups to a Canton police officer and did not know their subsequent custodian.
“No, they were resting on the bumper.”
Establishes that the apparent glass was resting on the bumper; Hartnett did not know when it appeared.
“It was not difficult.”
Hartnett said the apparent glass was not difficult to remove with tweezers. Alessi's later travel-and-weather feasibility question was sustained for lack of proper foundation.
“No, it in fact wasn't secured in any way on that quarter panel.”
Hair evidence was completely unsecured on a smooth vertical surface, undermining its evidentiary weight.
“No, there was not.”
Confirms no biological testing was performed on tail light fragments found at 34 Fairview Road.
“Yes, the items were packaged together, so they were already co-mingled, so there was no way for me to determine which debris came from which item, and it would be misleading to label them as such, so I combined them.”
Establishes that the two clothing items were already co-mingled before lab analysis, making it impossible to attribute debris to a specific garment.
“No, I don't know the source of the debris.”
Hartnett cannot identify whether debris on the clothing originated from the scene, an ambulance, a hospital, or elsewhere.
“I have no knowledge of where they were stored or anything like that before that.”
Confirms Hartnett has no chain of custody information for evidence items submitted by the Norfolk Detective Unit prior to lab receipt.
“No, I was not.”
Confirms Hartnett was not at the scene the morning O'Keefe was found, establishing she has no firsthand knowledge of evidence collection conditions.
“I did not note any. I also did not examine the interior of the vehicle.”
Hartnett testified that she did not note additional dents, scratches, or hair in response to the question asked, while also stating that she did not examine the vehicle interior. This does not establish that such evidence was absent everywhere on the vehicle.
“No. To the best of my recollection, there was no snow on the vehicle when I saw it.”
Hartnett recalled that there was no snow on the vehicle when she saw it. The answer describes her examination-time recollection and does not establish the vehicle's condition at the incident.
“I think there are really just too many variables to say either way.”
Hartnett said that too many variables prevented her from saying either way when an observed item was placed from a later examination. This was the admitted timing limitation; it did not establish that evidence had been placed on the vehicle.
“I would be looking for any item of evidence. I'm not specifically looking for anything. I'm just looking for anything that could potentially be evidence.”
Describes Hartnett's general search for potential evidence. It does not establish that her methodology could distinguish collision evidence from evidence placed later; the supplied placement-specific question was not answered.
“No, I did not.”
Concession that no causation analysis was performed on the hoodie damage.
“I wanted to correct something from the record yesterday. I wasn't sure when it was appropriate to do that.”
Hartnett requests to correct something from the prior day's record; the available transcript does not disclose the proposed correction or its disposition.
Key Moments
- Hartnett documented three categories of damage on the rear passenger area of Karen Read's Lexus: a dent in the trunk door, scratches on the rear bumper, and a broken tail light — the physical foundation of the prosecution's vehicle-impact theory.
- On cross-examination, Hartnett confirmed she found no visible stains or biological tissue on the SUV itself, and described glass fragments as 'just sitting on the bumper' — a detail the defense used to suggest the fragments may not have been deposited by a collision.
- Hartnett testified that she collected swabs from damage areas on O'Keefe's right sleeve specifically because she had been told the victim may have been bitten by a dog, introducing the canine DNA investigation line into her forensic work.
- In Trial 2, defense attorney Alessi confronted Hartnett with photographs showing the orientation of a hair on the vehicle's quarter panel appeared to have changed between two shots taken at the scene, raising questions about evidence handling during the examination.
- In Trial 1, Hartnett agreed that, apart from items she personally took from the sallyport, discussed items were submitted on March 14 or later; she said the Norfolk County detective unit submitted them but could not identify the officer, and personally had no data showing where they were before lab acceptance, after the court sustained Jackson's broader chain-of-custody question.