Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveSarah Levinson
Testimony Impact
Sarah Levinson, a longtime friend of the Albert family, was among the guests at Brian Albert Jr.'s 23rd birthday gathering at 34 Fairview Road on the night of January 28-29, 2022. She testified about the layout of the home, the guests present, the timeline of arrivals and departures, and the conditions when she left with Jennifer and Matthew McCabe between 1:30 and 2:00 AM. Her testimony places her walking down the front walkway past the area where O'Keefe's body was discovered hours later, without seeing any person, body, or debris. She testified in both trials, covering substantially the same events.
Trial 1 vs Trial 2
In Trial 2, Alan Jackson took a more expansive approach to establishing Levinson's social ties to the Albert family, framing her as embedded in the network of guests at 34 Fairview rather than merely a bystander. He also introduced her prior Trial 1 testimony about never having met the dog Chloe as an impeachment tool, and the nine-month delay before law enforcement interviewed her received more sustained attention. The redirect in Trial 2 was notably brief, with Brennan focusing narrowly on whether interior house lighting would have illuminated the flag pole area — a more targeted rebuttal to the defense's visibility argument than the broader redirect conducted in Trial 1.
Notable Quotes From The Record
“No one was tipping over.”
Downplays the level of intoxication at the gathering despite acknowledged drinking.
“We were celebrating, happy, dancing, all that. It continued. The drinking continued.”
Characterizes the atmosphere at 34 Fairview as consistently normal with no conflict — countering defense suggestions of an altercation inside.
“Her phone was plugged in behind me, charging. She was checking it periodically.”
Corroborates Jennifer McCabe's phone activity that evening, relevant to the timeline of communications and the disputed Google search.
“So we exited the front door and went down the front walkway to the driveway. As I said, it was snowing. Julie and I were arms linked, and I was looking down at my feet to make sure I didn't slip.”
Establishes snow accumulation at the time of departure (1:30-2:00 AM) and explains why she was looking down rather than at the yard.
“The fact of the matter is that no investigator connected with this case took a statement from you in terms of an interview until about nine months later, correct? — Correct.”
Highlights the delayed investigation — a key defense theme about the quality of the police work.
“No.”
Levinson's flat denial that she saw any body, cap, sneaker, or plastic debris on the lawn she walked past.
“When I walked out of the front door, I went down the steps of the stoop and I looked in front of me, like down, not straight. So it would be the grass that borders the front walkway.”
Narrows the area she observed when leaving, limiting the inference from cross that she would have seen a body on the lawn.
“I know that legally I didn't have to, and I didn't have anything to say.”
Frames her refusal to speak with defense investigators as a straightforward legal choice, not concealment.
“It was cold, but it wasn't raining or snowing or anything.”
Establishes no precipitation when she arrived between 7-8 PM, contrasting with conditions when she left.
“No, you would have to go back outside.”
Establishes there is no interior connection between the family room and the garage at 34 Fairview Road.
“Like I don't know, a dusting, or I could still see like some little pieces of grass like sticking out of it. Um, but it was pretty much like the walkway and everything was white.”
Documents snow accumulation at departure time (1:30-2:00 AM) — light enough that grass was still visible.
“I was wearing shoes that didn't really have traction, so I was looking at my feet.”
Explains why she did not observe the front lawn area when leaving — she was focused on not slipping.
“I didn't notice anything. I wasn't looking out at the flag pole.”
Levinson qualifies her observation — she didn't see anything unusual but wasn't actively looking, limiting the value of her negative observation.
“A state trooper, Michael Proctor.”
Identifies Trooper Proctor as the interviewer nine months after the incident, reinforcing the delayed and narrow investigation.
“Somewhat.”
Acknowledges discussing the subject matter of the interview with Julie Nagel beforehand, suggesting potential witness coordination.
“No.”
Levinson confirms the interior light did not illuminate the area where O'Keefe's body was later found.
Key Moments
- Levinson established through firsthand observation that John O'Keefe never entered 34 Fairview Road during the time she was present, directly corroborating the accounts of other guests and contradicting the defense theory that O'Keefe was beaten inside the house.
- On cross-examination, defense attorneys pressed Levinson on the central absence: she walked out the front door and down the walkway at approximately 2 AM — with adequate lighting and in the company of two others — and saw no body, no cap, no sneaker, and no taillight debris on the lawn where O'Keefe was found four hours later.
- Levinson described Jennifer McCabe's phone being plugged in and charging nearby while McCabe checked it periodically throughout the evening, testimony relevant to the disputed timeline surrounding McCabe's communications and the Google search at issue in the case.
- Defense counsel highlighted that law enforcement did not interview Levinson until approximately nine months after O'Keefe's death, using her case as an example of delayed witness contact — a recurring theme in the defense's challenge to the quality of the investigation.
- In Trial 2, Alan Jackson established that Levinson had spoken with Julie Nagel about the subject matter of their upcoming testimony before being interviewed, and that despite visiting 34 Fairview Road more than twenty times, she had never encountered the Albert family dog Chloe — a detail that drew on prior Trial 1 testimony.