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 near the 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 the truck passed, the dome light inside the SUV illuminated a woman in the driver's seat, with her hands at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel and facing forward. Nagel did not see anyone else, but said another occupant could have been present and that the woman and the SUV obstructed his view of the vehicle's far side. He testified in both trials about the SUV's position and movements and the limits of what he could see during the relevant interval.
Challenges & Responses
What attorneys challenged during examination and how the witness responded.
The defense cross-examination focused on the limits of Nagel's observations. Nagel said he did not see a collision, a person on the ground, missing or white tail-light pieces, or another occupant, but acknowledged that he was not looking for a body or inspecting the tail lights, could not see the SUV's far side, and believed another occupant could have been present. He maintained his core account of seeing a woman in the driver's seat and not seeing a collision during the interval he observed.
Trial 1 vs Trial 2
In Trial 2, Nagel's examination was more extensive, adding redirect and recross that drew out what he did and did not observe: he saw no missing or white tail-light pieces, person on the ground, or other occupant. He also said he was not inspecting the tail lights, another occupant could have been present, and the woman and SUV obstructed his view of the far side. The Trial 2 cross was conducted by Yannetti rather than Jackson and placed greater emphasis on the SUV's occupant and movement. Nagel's core observations remained consistent across trials, while the expanded examination made their limits more explicit.
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.”
Nagel described the driver's posture during a brief passing glance while his attention was largely on Julie; the observation does not establish that nobody else was present or exited at another moment.
“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 said he did not notice taillight damage. His wording, 'Not to my acknowledgment,' and his periods of divided attention limit the answer to his observation.
“No.”
Nagel testified that he did not see the SUV reverse and hit a pedestrian; he also described periods when his attention was elsewhere.
“That's all I saw at the time. Yes.”
Nagel said he saw one person during the passing view of the SUV; he also testified that he was not really looking and that it was only a glance.
“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 forward movement Nagel observed after the brake lights activated. He said he had not kept his attention on the SUV, so the observation does not establish all vehicle activity during the period.
“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.”
Reports that Nagel briefly observed a woman in the driver's seat with her hands on the wheel. He could not identify her and acknowledged that another person could have been present.
“Too brief, sir.”
Nagel said his view was too brief to identify the woman in the SUV, limiting the observation to an unidentified woman in the driver's seat.
“No, I did not, sir.”
Records a negative observation, but Nagel said he was focused on his sister rather than the SUV and that the woman and vehicle obstructed his view of the other side. It does not establish a continuous account of activity around the SUV 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.”
Nagel's exact denial that he heard screaming from the SUV.
“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.”
Records Nagel's description of the snow conditions without drawing a conclusion about what would necessarily have been visible.
“No, sir. I wasn't observing the vehicle like that.”
Nagel's qualifier that he was not observing the vehicle for tail-light damage or missing sections.
“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 illuminated a woman in the driver's seat with her hands at 10 and 2, looking straight ahead. Nagel did not see another occupant, but agreed one could have been present and said the woman and the vehicle obstructed his view of the far side.
- On cross-examination in Trial 1, Nagel said he did not see the SUV drive forward 50 or 60 feet, slam into reverse, drive backward, or strike a person during the approximately five minutes he was present. When Jackson reframed that negative observation by asking whether a strike 'did not happen' while Nagel was sitting there, Nagel answered no; his testimony remained limited to the interval and vantage he observed.
- During his approximately five minutes at the scene, Nagel said he did not see another vehicle between his truck and the SUV, anyone get out of the SUV or walk toward the driveway, or a person lying on the ground near the flag pole. He said he was not observing the SUV specifically for missing tail-light sections, described the brake-light glow as red, and did not see a missing piece appearing white instead of red. He also acknowledged that the woman and the SUV obstructed his view of the vehicle's far side.
- 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.