Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveNicholas Barros
Testimony Impact
Sergeant Nicholas Barros of the Dighton Police Department responded to 345 Country Hill Drive on the afternoon of January 29, 2022, after Trooper Michael Proctor contacted Dighton PD to assist with retrieving a vehicle he described as involved in a homicide. Barros observed Karen Read's Lexus in a snow-covered driveway and noted damage to the right rear tail light before the vehicle was towed by Diamond Towing. His testimony is central to the defense's contention that additional damage to the tail light occurred after the vehicle left the Read residence and before it was photographed at the Canton police sally port.
Trial 1 vs Trial 2
In Trial 1, Barros gave a brief direct examination and the defense waived cross-examination entirely, leaving his account of the tail light condition largely unchallenged. In Trial 2, the defense elicited far more specific testimony about exactly which portion of the tail light was intact versus damaged, sharpening the before-and-after contrast with the prosecution's photographs. The prosecution responded with a full cross-examination that had not occurred in Trial 1, using Barros's own sparse report and prior transcript to impeach his more detailed Trial 2 recollections.
Notable Quotes From The Record
“Later on, I believe it was around 2:30 in the afternoon, I received a phone call from the Norfolk District Attorney's office, with the troopers assigned there, and they had stated that they were going to come to Dighton to retrieve a vehicle that was involved in a homicide.”
Establishes the timeline of the vehicle seizure and that it was characterized as a homicide investigation by early afternoon on January 29.
“I had parked my marked police vehicle at the end of the driveway since it was a snowstorm and we could not get into the driveway, and then we walked up to the residence.”
Corroborates weather severity and that the vehicle had not been moved since the snow accumulated.
“It was about a foot of snow in the driveway.”
Establishes the snow conditions at the Read residence and that the driveway was untouched, relevant to timeline and vehicle movement.
“I saw that there was some damage to the right rear tail light. To my best ability and recollection that tail light was not completely damaged — it was cracked and a piece missing, but not completely damaged.”
Independent police observation of the tail light condition before the vehicle was seized — describes partial damage rather than complete destruction.
“I have no issue with limiting her testimony to the animal attack issue — the dog bite issue. I wasn't planning on going into that aspect anyway. I've got another pathologist who's going to do exactly that.”
Jackson concedes the motor vehicle opinion to preserve Russell's dog bite testimony, revealing the defense has another expert (likely Wolfe) to cover vehicle-strike inconsistency.
“His intention was to retrieve a vehicle that he said was involved in a homicide.”
Establishes that Proctor told Barros the vehicle was connected to a homicide and his stated purpose was seizure, relevant to chain of custody timeline.
“Absolutely not.”
Barros's emphatic denial that Exhibit 13 reflects the tail light condition he observed, establishing a before/after discrepancy in the physical evidence.
“That tail light is completely smashed out.”
Barros characterizes the extent of additional damage visible in the exhibit photo compared to what he personally observed.
“That middle section was intact when I was there. Towards that right side where that large chunk is, that's what was missing.”
Specific description of which portion of the tail light was damaged versus intact, pinpointing exactly what changed between his observation and the later photograph.
“The vehicle had damage to the right rear tail light. That's what I wrote.”
Barros confirms his entire report description of the key evidence was a single line with no detail about size, shape, or placement.
“It's not in there.”
After reviewing his Trial 1 transcript, Barros concedes he never actually distinguished the sally port photograph from his on-site observations — contradicting his confident testimony moments earlier that he had.
“I know what I saw and that wasn't it.”
Despite conceding memory difficulties, Barros pushes back with conviction that the sally port photo differs from his observation — showing the limits of Brennan's impeachment.
“No.”
Barros's final answer unequivocally maintains his position despite extensive cross-examination
“It is.”
Barros agrees the closeup tail light photograph is consistent with what he saw, contradicting his direct examination testimony where he said it did not match.
Key Moments
- Barros testified that the tail light on Read's Lexus was cracked with approximately a six-by-two-to-three-inch piece missing from one side, but that the middle section remained intact — a condition he described as distinctly less damaged than what appears in prosecution photographs taken later at the sally port.
- When shown Exhibit 13 — a close-up photograph of the tail light — Barros stated 'Absolutely not' when asked whether it reflected what he observed, and characterized the exhibit as showing a tail light that was 'completely smashed out,' in contrast to his recollection.
- Barros testified that Trooper Proctor told him the vehicle was connected to a homicide and that his stated purpose was to seize it, establishing the law enforcement chain of custody and the timeline of when the vehicle passed out of Barros's sight.
- On cross-examination in Trial 2, Barros was confronted with his police report, which contained only a single line noting tail light damage with no description of size, shape, or placement — and with his Trial 1 transcript, which showed he had never actually distinguished between the sally port photograph and his on-site observations, directly contradicting his confident in-court testimony.
- Barros acknowledged on recross that the close-up tail light photograph was consistent with what he observed — a concession that stood in tension with his earlier emphatic denial.