Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveRyan Nagel
Testimony Impact
Ryan Nagel came to 34 Fairview Road in the early hours of January 29, 2022, riding as a passenger in Richard D'Antuono's Ford F-150 to collect his sister Julie Nagel from the Albert household party. While waiting in the truck's driveway for approximately five minutes, Nagel observed a black SUV ahead of him with brake lights on, including the center brake light, that moved forward slightly. As he passed, the dome light inside the SUV illuminated a lone woman in the driver's seat, hands at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel, facing forward. Nagel testified in both trials, providing eyewitness accounts of the SUV's position, condition, and sole occupant during the window of time when prosecutors alleged the fatal collision occurred.
Trial 1 vs Trial 2
In Trial 2, Nagel's examination was more extensive, adding a redirect and recross that reinforced specific details — no tail light damage, no person on the ground, and the empty passenger seat. The Trial 2 cross was conducted by Yannetti rather than Jackson, and placed greater emphasis on confirming the SUV's occupant was alone and the vehicle was driven safely in the neighborhood. The core testimony remained consistent across both trials, with Trial 2 simply drawing out additional confirmatory details through the expanded examination.
Notable Quotes From The Record
“Just started to snow, sir.”
Establishes snow conditions at the time — light accumulation, which is relevant to the snow and footprint evidence in the case.
“I noticed — the only reason I noticed is because the brake lights were on — and it moved, I'd say, maybe another car length in front of us from where it was.”
Establishes the SUV moved while parked on Fairview, with brake lights observed including the third center light.
“I observed that there was a person inside the car with the interior light on.”
Nagel sees a woman in the driver's seat as he passes the SUV, the dome light illuminating the interior.
“Seemed like she was looking straight ahead with her hands at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel.”
Describes the SUV occupant's posture — sitting still, not interacting with anyone or exiting the vehicle.
“No, sir, I did not.”
Nagel confirms he did not see the SUV reverse and hit a pedestrian — directly contradicting the prosecution's theory of how O'Keefe was struck.
“I never saw any other vehicle in between us.”
Establishes no Jeep or other vehicle was between Nagel's truck and the SUV, relevant to third-party involvement theories.
“Not to my acknowledgment. No.”
Nagel confirms no visible damage to any of the three tail lights on the SUV, undermining the prosecution's tail light evidence.
“That's all I saw at the time. Yes.”
Nagel confirms seeing only one person in the SUV — a lone female — consistent with the defense narrative that no one else was present.
“No, but I did see the brake lights. It looked like it moved, but it wasn't. So the brake lights were on, it released them, and then stopped again. So it probably moved another car length up.”
Describes the SUV's only observed movement — a brief forward shift, not a reversing motion.
“I saw that there was a woman in the driver's seat of the black SUV in front of me, sitting there with her hands on the steering wheel at 10 and two.”
Places a lone female in the SUV with the dome light on, hands on the wheel — consistent with someone sitting in a parked vehicle, not exiting or striking anyone.
“Too brief, sir.”
Nagel candidly admits he could not identify the woman in the SUV, limiting the weight of his identification while bolstering his credibility as an honest witness.
“No, I did not, sir.”
Repeated answer to multiple questions about whether anyone exited the SUV or was seen outside — the cumulative effect establishes no observed activity around the vehicle or property.
“I could have popped her on the nose if I wanted to.”
Establishes how close Nagel was to his sister Julie, confirming he had a clear opportunity to assess her condition during their conversation.
“No, I did not, sir.”
Nagel's confirmation that he heard no arguing, yelling, or screaming from the SUV undermines any theory of a domestic dispute inside the vehicle.
“No, there was not inches of snow. No, I could still see the grass coming through the snow. I mean, just like a coating. You could still see the bare ground.”
Establishes ground conditions at 12:30 AM — minimal snow accumulation, meaning a body or disturbance on the lawn would have been visible.
“No, sir. I wasn't observing the vehicle like that.”
Honest qualifier — Nagel wasn't inspecting the tail lights, but still noticed no damage or missing sections when brake lights activated.
“The woman and the vehicle itself.”
Acknowledges his view of the far side of the SUV was obstructed, conceding a limitation while maintaining he saw no one else.
“No, I'm not changing that. No.”
Unequivocal confirmation that redirect did not shake his testimony about the empty passenger seat.
Key Moments
- Nagel described watching the black SUV's brake lights activate and the vehicle move forward approximately one car length while he waited in the driveway — observations he said he noticed precisely because the brake lights caught his attention.
- As D'Antuono's truck passed the SUV, the dome light inside illuminated the interior, and Nagel saw a woman sitting alone in the driver's seat with her hands on the steering wheel at 10 and 2, looking straight ahead — placing a single, stationary occupant in the vehicle during the relevant timeframe.
- On cross-examination in Trial 1, Nagel affirmatively stated that the SUV did not reverse and strike a pedestrian while he was present, going beyond 'I didn't see it' to confirm 'that did not happen' — a direct rebuttal to the prosecution's theory of impact.
- Nagel confirmed he saw no damage to any of the three tail lights on the SUV and no person on the ground, no one exiting the vehicle, and no other vehicle between his truck and the SUV during his five minutes at the scene.
- Nagel also placed the start of snow conditions at the time of his visit, noting it had 'just started to snow' — contextualizing the weather and road conditions relevant to the physical evidence examined later in the case.