Browse sidebar discussions from both Karen Read trials, with links to the exact point in each transcript.
The 359 entries below come from reporter transcripts currently available to the archive; they are not every sidebar from either trial.
Counsel discussed how to mark exhibits that had not been premarked, and the judge directed that agreed-upon exhibits be marked as introduced.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that agreed-upon exhibits may be brought up and marked as they are introduced; one lawyer from each side must be present from 8:30 to 8:50 a.m. for marking.
The Commonwealth objected to defense opening remarks as suggesting a third-party culprit, and the judge said she would instruct jurors that openings are not evidence.
Court's actionThe judge said she would instruct the jurors when they returned that openings are not evidence.
Counsel discussed potential hearsay in anticipated testimony concerning information Paul O'Keefe received from his wife, and no immediate instruction was requested.
Court's actionThe judge said she could address the matter in the final charge and, after counsel did not want an instruction, gave no immediate instruction.
Counsel discussed showing Ring video to the witness for identification and snow-removal timing, with no defense objection, and the judge directed it be marked as an exhibit.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the Ring video be marked as an exhibit.
The court discussed the upcoming witness schedule, a future voir dire concerning Detective Lank's prior allegations, and next-day exhibit-marking arrangements.
Court's actionThe judge requested advance notice before Detective Lank testifies and said the Court would start at 9:00 a.m., with counsel present at 8:30 a.m. for exhibit marking.
The judge addressed repeated playback of video said to show Jennifer McCabe pass an SUV and enter a house, instructing counsel to show it only once and freeze the image instead.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to show the video only once and to freeze it rather than replay it.
The court addressed foundation for causation testimony and repeat demonstrations, permitting causation questions if supported by foundation while directing that the witness not repeat a demonstration.
Court's actionThe judge permitted questions about causation if a foundation could be established, barred repeat demonstrations, and said counsel could ask about causation.
The court discussed a synchronized Saraf and Goode dash-camera exhibit and limited counsel's introduction of it.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to show the synchronized dash-camera exhibit without comments, permitting only identification of the dash cams.
The court addressed use of a synchronized video compilation and required prior review of later similar compilations.
Court's actionThe judge allowed this compilation to be used once, but required a break for the court to review any other put-together compilation before it is introduced.
The court clarified who could object during witness questioning and directed the witness to leave the courtroom.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that Ms. Little could not object while Mr. Lally questioned a witness and directed that the witness step out.
The court required foundation for the video exhibits and explained that premarking did not place them in evidence.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to lay a foundation before using the video and stated it would not come in if the witness did not acknowledge the relevant occurrence.
The court sustained an objection to counsel's narration of the video and instructed counsel on questioning the witness.
Court's actionThe judge sustained the objection and instructed counsel not to narrate the video, directing counsel to proceed properly.
Counsel proposed offering a premarked widescreen Saraf video and using a 15-second portion; the Commonwealth stated no objection.
The court permitted a video replay and directed counsel how to ask the witness about what was heard.
Court's actionThe judge permitted replay of the video and instructed counsel to ask the witness, “what did you hear,” rather than whether the witness heard it.
The court coordinated the next day's witness schedule, jury view, transportation, and related logistics.
Court's actionThe judge stated that testimony would finish before the view, which would occur after Firefighter McLaughlin's testimony.
The Court set jury-view procedures, scheduled Teri Kun for May 15, restricted recording of children, and required video materials for review.
The court addressed advance review of video exhibits, protection of personal information through redactions, exhibit-handling procedures, and courtroom formality.
Court's actionThe judge required advance submission of all intended video exhibits, sidebar before playing unseen videos, and redaction of exhibits before admission; premarking exhibits was discontinued.
The judge confirmed that the statement was one sentence and permitted counsel to proceed without placing it before the witness.
Court's actionThe judge permitted the one-sentence statement to proceed.
The court limited questioning to the witness's relationship with Caitlin Albert and prior visits to the home, then directed a short voir dire concerning photographs.
Court's actionThe judge allowed questions about the witness's relationship with Caitlin Albert and prior visits to the home, but did not allow the photographs to be shown then; the judge ordered a short voir dire after counsel showed the photographs.
The court considered defense photographs offered for impeachment and limited questioning about the witness's relationship while excluding the photographs from evidence and the screen.
Court's actionThe judge found a Rule 14 violation, ruled that the photographs would not come into evidence or be shown on screen, and allowed them only to refresh recollection if needed.
The court sustained an objection to argumentative questioning while distinguishing permissible impeachment with a prior statement.
Court's actionThe judge sustained the objection to argumentative questions and instructed counsel to ask the question again if pursuing strict impeachment.
The court limited redirect examination to how the witness learned names through news broadcasts and excluded inquiry into the Kearney matter through that witness.
Court's actionThe judge barred inquiry into the Kearney matter through this witness and allowed leading questions about what the witness learned through news broadcasts, including social media news.
Counsel clarified that he intended to cite a case rather than show or describe photographs, and the judge permitted that approach.
Court's actionThe judge stated that citing a case was fine.
The court discussed foundation, hearsay, and the proposed testimony's purpose in explaining treatment, then deferred further argument until after lunch.
Court's actionThe judge required further foundation before the proposed testimony and deferred argument until after the lunch recess.
The court addressed use of an autopsy photograph during cross-examination and required the witness to adopt the marked photograph before it could be introduced through him.
Court's actionThe judge directed that one autopsy photograph be marked for identification and allowed it to be introduced through the witness only if the witness adopted it.
The court addressed the visibility of a body photograph on the courtroom screen and directed that the image be cropped to show only the arm.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to crop the displayed image so that only the arm would be shown.
The court coordinated replacement and identification of redacted reports and photographs, corrected exhibit numbering, and admitted the redacted Ms. Read report by agreement.
Court's actionThe judge approved replacing the identified exhibits by agreement, allowed the corrected exhibit numbering to be referenced for the day, and stated that the redacted Ms. Read report would enter evidence by agreement.
The court addressed authentication of two reports and allowed the witness's own report into evidence while declining to mark the other report for identification.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the witness's own report into evidence and did not require the other report to be marked for identification.
The court overruled an objection to counsel reading from Trooper Proctor's report and asking the witness whether he agreed with it.
Court's actionThe judge overruled the objection and permitted counsel to question the witness from Trooper Proctor's report.
The court discussed whether to begin the next witness late on Friday and released the jury for the day while directing counsel to remain.
Court's actionThe judge released the jury for the day and directed counsel to remain.
The judge clarified for the record that 16 jurors answered the last question affirmatively.
Court's actionThe judge stated that 16 jurors answered the last question affirmatively.
Counsel discussed publishing exhibits to the jury before marking them, without objection, while the clerk reported that the FTR recording system was not recording.
The judge addressed concern that exhibit references could confuse the record and instructed counsel to identify which exhibits the court reporter needed to put up.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to identify for the court reporter which exhibits had to be put up.
Counsel discussed marking a disk containing video footage and an apparent duplicate exhibit number for a photograph, which the judge directed them to sort out during a break.
Court's actionThe judge permitted the disk to be put in and instructed counsel to resolve the apparent duplicate exhibit number at a break.
The court resolved duplicate use of Exhibit 20 by directing that the photograph already referenced to jurors be marked as Exhibit 20A.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the photograph referenced as Exhibit 20 be marked as Exhibit 20A.
The judge and counsel discussed a hearsay objection and foundation for testimony about the recovery of items, limiting the questioning to the link from Berkowitz to Lank.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that the questioning end at the point linking Berkowitz to Lank.
The court considered whether the witness could be asked about what Lank had done before the witness arrived and allowed the previously asked question.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the question that had been asked.
The judge advised counsel that the process would take about 10 minutes because it required going through another courtroom.
Court's actionThe judge gave counsel 10 minutes.
The court discussed the expected length of upcoming witnesses and a possible plan to send the jury home early, conduct Lank's voir dire that day, and have Lank testify the next day.
The court discussed a report authored by Trooper Paul and whether Sergeant Goode had adopted it, after which counsel said he would ask a few more questions and move on.
The court discussed labels and synchronization added to a combined Officer Saraf and Officer Goode dash-cam video before admitting it as Exhibit 16.
Court's actionThe judge admitted the item as Exhibit 16.
The court addressed use of a police report and photo during cross-examination, directed that the photo be shown to the witness, and ended the examination for the day.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the photo be shown to the witness and that the witness return the next day.
The parties discussed redactions and the source of key fob swipe records, which the judge kept out of evidence and marked for identification.
Court's actionThe judge did not admit the key fob swipe records; they were marked Exhibit R for identification pending redaction.
The parties discussed admitting and displaying portions of police reports and photographs, with the judge requiring redaction and limiting what could be shown.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the top third of each report after the related exhibit was admitted, required material to be whited out and cut, and limited screen display to that portion.
The judge excluded proposed material at sidebar and sent jurors out briefly while counsel addressed witness availability and further discussion.
The court instructed jurors on the limited relevance of forthcoming evidence about a 2012 event.
Counsel advised the judge that he would pause a five-minute video at several points, and the judge instructed him not to narrate it.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel not to narrate the video.
The prosecutor objected that a question called for speculation, and the judge directed defense counsel to rephrase it.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to ask the question differently because it asked the witness to speculate.
The judge excluded proposed photographs after finding a discovery violation and ruling they were cumulative and not inconsistent; additional photographs required a witness foundation before any renewed argument.
The court allowed two limited defense follow-up questions about a prior incident while restricting further detail.
The court adjourned for the day, with the lieutenant to return the next morning and remaining video still to be presented.
The court addressed planned video exhibits and directed defense counsel to seek permission before each exhibit display.
The parties discussed testimony about a call from Camerano's wife and why he went to One Meadows Ave.; defense counsel stated no objection.
The parties discussed using a phone-call extraction for calls between the defendant and Katie Camerano on the 29th, including whether the witness could recognize it.
Court's actionThe judge instructed the parties to try having the witness recognize the phone-call extraction.
The parties discussed whether questions about the defendant's care toward children were relationship evidence or prohibited character evidence.
Court's actionThe judge allowed one question on whether the defendant appeared caring toward the children and ended further inquiry in that area.
The parties discussed whether a question about a thirteenth birthday was relevant to the witness's connection with O'Keefe and Read.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the question about the thirteenth birthday.
The parties discussed testimony about what the witness had heard concerning O'Keefe and vacations, including whether it came directly from O'Keefe.
Court's actionThe judge excluded the testimony as hearsay.
The parties discussed questioning the witness about a video he did not recall seeing, including authentication and limits on narrating what appeared on screen.
Court's actionThe judge permitted questions whether the witness was in the video and looking at someone, but not narration of the video.
The court allowed a limited recross question about Read and O'Keefe's relationship, with no build-up and no further questioning afterward.
The court set Christopher Albert as the next witness and adjourned early, instructing jurors to return the next morning.
The parties disputed questions about Chris Albert's connections to Trooper Proctor and prior timing testimony; the judge limited cross-examination to two stated timing points.
Court's actionThe Commonwealth's objection was sustained; cross-examination could address the two stated timing points, not the wedding from 12 years ago, subject to revisiting if the door opened.
Defense counsel sought to introduce and display a photograph of two people together; the Commonwealth stated it had no objection.
The parties disputed hearsay and impeachment questions about statements connected to Trooper Proctor and alleged relationships; the judge excluded the material at that point.
Court's actionThe Commonwealth's objection was sustained; the judge would not allow the material at that point and said it could be addressed after Proctor was called.
The parties addressed publishing a text excerpt already contained in Exhibit 48, and the excerpt was marked as Exhibit T for identification.
Court's actionThe text excerpt was marked as Exhibit T for identification; the judge directed counsel to identify Exhibit 48 and its location before publishing it, after a digital-evidence instruction.
Counsel discussed a social-media photo and comment involving Michael Proctor's mother and Chris Albert; the judge kept the prior exclusion in place while allowing identification marking.
Court's actionThe ruling stood, but the item would be marked for identification.
The judge and defense counsel deferred discussion of a separate matter until 12:30 and continued with testimony.
Court's actionThe judge directed the parties to continue with testimony and said the separate matter would be addressed at sidebar at 12:30.
The parties discussed questions about Julie Albert's ties to the Proctor family and investigation-related contacts; the judge required a neater, question-by-question examination.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the examination proceed question by question and said witnesses could be recalled if Proctor totally disavowed the matter, subject to foundation and collateralness.
The parties disputed authentication, hearsay, and materiality of a photograph at the Proctors' home; the judge excluded it while marking it for identification.
Court's actionThe objection was sustained; the photograph was not admitted and would be kept as Exhibit V for identification.
The judge confirmed that a security issue would be addressed off the case record and directed the session to switch from the court reporter to FTR.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the remainder of the session switch to FTR and stated the security issue was not part of the case record.
The court addressed prior grand-jury references, security measures, the Memorial Day week schedule, and a later hearing on the Commonwealth's motion concerning Aidan Kearney.
The defense sought permission to ask about text messages with Courtney Proctor on recross, and the judge sustained the Commonwealth's scope objection while also instructing counsel to avoid repetitive witness identification.
Court's actionThe judge sustained the Commonwealth's scope objection to recross questions about text messages.
The court arranged a prompt sealed hearing on the Commonwealth's motion concerning Mr. Kearney and excused the Read parties from the ancillary matter.
The parties discussed a hearsay objection to testimony about being told police wanted to speak with the witness, and the judge directed counsel to ask what happened next.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to ask what happened next and said she would allow the answer if the witness answered as described.
The parties disputed whether questions about the witness's conversation were hearsay, and the judge limited examination to the witness's actions rather than conversation specifics.
Court's actionThe judge allowed questions about what the witness did as a result of a conversation but prohibited asking for the conversation's specifics.
The parties discussed questions about the witness's husband's boxing and fighting experience, and the judge permitted two questions framed around general training and experience.
Court's actionThe judge said the topic was relevant but directed counsel to ask two questions about general training and experience rather than characterize the husband as highly skilled.
The defense sought to clarify how it received Federal Grand Jury testimony, and the judge barred further questioning on whether the Commonwealth had provided it.
Court's actionThe judge said she would not allow questioning about whether the Federal Grand Jury testimony had been provided by the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth objected to describing a police officer's report as the witness's statement while it was being used to refresh recollection, and defense counsel said she would not do so again.
The defense sought to use a scale replica of 34 Fairview to assist the jury, and the judge approved its use as a chalk if the witness adopted it.
Court's actionThe judge permitted use of the scale model as a chalk and approved publishing it to the jury if the witness adopted it.
The parties discussed using a Cellebrite report to refresh recollection about calls, and the judge limited the inquiry to unanswered calls and directed that the report be marked for identification.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to ask whether the witness recognized the Cellebrite report and whether it refreshed recollection only as to unanswered calls, and ordered it marked for identification.
The parties discussed admitting Exhibit XX, described as a graphic rendering rather than a photograph, and the judge required them to state that stipulation before admission.
Court's actionThe judge directed the parties to state their stipulation that the graphic rendering was not a photograph before it was admitted into evidence.
The parties discussed questioning about information reportedly provided to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the judge ended that line of inquiry.
Court's actionThe judge ended the inquiry concerning information provided to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The court discussed trial scheduling and a proposed video showing defense counsel at the property, and the judge said the video could not be admitted because counsel appeared in it.
Court's actionThe judge said she could not admit the video because counsel appeared in it, even if the Commonwealth agreed.
The court clarified how counsel could distinguish grand-jury proceedings during questioning without using "Commonwealth."
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to refer to "the other grand jury" if needed, but not "Commonwealth," and permitted that Mr. Lally was not the prosecutor.
The parties discussed objections to questions about notice concerning a phone and possible advice-of-counsel issues, prompting the judge to order voir dire.
Court's actionThe judge ordered a short voir dire, sent the jury out, and said counsel could be brought in if present.
The court discussed dates surrounding a phone-related notice and required voir dire before questions that could raise a Fifth Amendment issue.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to call it "another proceeding" and requested voir dire before asking the question because of a possible Fifth Amendment issue.
The parties agreed to stipulate that the Commonwealth sent a referenced letter to Mr. Albert on September 23 or 24, 2022, but not that he received it.
Court's actionThe court accepted the parties' stipulation that the Commonwealth sent the referenced letter to Mr. Albert on September 23 or 24, 2022, without stipulating receipt.
The judge told counsel to calm down while stating that counsel had been given substantial leeway in questioning.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to calm down while noting she was allowing substantial leeway in questioning.
The court directed counsel not to read prior testimony and to establish any prior inconsistent statement through questioning before impeachment.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to ask questions rather than read prior testimony, permitting impeachment if a prior inconsistent statement was established.
The parties debated questioning and photographs concerning the witness's relationship with Katie McLaughlin, and the judge limited further questioning while declining the photos on the current showing.
Court's actionThe judge said she would allow one or two more questions, did not permit the photos based on the material then before her, and said she would review her notes on Katie McLaughlin.
Defense raised concern about communications with Brian Albert while he remained under oath; the judge deferred any order pending review of the rules.
Counsel challenged limits on questioning about Caitlin Albert’s relationship with Katie McLaughlin, and the judge sustained the objection.
Court's actionThe judge sustained the objection and stated counsel could ask questions, with objections sustained or overruled as they arose.
Counsel sought to use photographs concerning Katie McLaughlin and the witness’s college roommates; the judge allowed questioning on the photograph and directed counsel to move on.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to show the witness the photograph, question her about it, and then move on.
The parties disputed hearsay testimony about a statement that drew the witness’s attention to the front lawn; the judge excluded the statement but allowed discussion of the event.
Court's actionThe judge ruled that the statement itself would not come in through the witness, but counsel could discuss the event without the statement.
Counsel proposed asking about an attempted interview at the Levinson home, and the judge directed counsel to omit Ms. Little and ask the witness directly.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to leave Ms. Little out of the question and ask the witness directly.
Counsel raised a foundation concern about testimony on vehicle locations; the judge said it could be addressed on cross and prohibited counsel from speaking to a witness on the stand.
Court's actionThe judge said counsel could address the foundation issue on cross and prohibited Mr. Lally from speaking to a witness on the stand.
Counsel discussed scheduling Ms. Kun's testimony for the next day and clarified that the prosecutor had not previously discussed the current witness's description of an object with her.
The court preserved a foundation objection and restricted substantive contact with witnesses during testimony.
The court and counsel agreed on an explanation for calling the next witness out of order.
The court confirmed the defense could proceed during Ms. Little's brief absence before Ryan Nagel was called.
Counsel discussed limiting questions to the witness's September contact with state police and avoiding testimony or discussion involving another agency.
Court's actionThe judge asked counsel to proceed with caution and clarified concern about questions that could elicit discussion of Federal Grand Jury testimony.
The court ordered a short voir dire after the defense challenged the authentication and reliability of proposed screenshots.
The court set limits on questioning after voir dire and defense counsel requested a brief additional delay.
The court ordered the date removed from photographs before they were shown to the jury.
The judge warned that questioning about a screenshot and prior hearings could open the door to Commonwealth questioning about harassment testimony.
Court's actionThe judge warned that the line of questioning could open the door for the Commonwealth and stated that she believed the door was already open.
Counsel debated use of a wedding photograph to show a longstanding relationship between Colin Albert and the Proctor family, and the judge declined to admit it at that time as cumulative.
Court's actionThe photograph was not admitted at that time; the judge allowed further development of the relationship evidence and permitted counsel to return it to the witness for questions.
Counsel renewed the request to use the wedding photograph for bias evidence, and the judge said additional questioning about the investigator and the investigation might help get it admitted.
Court's actionThe judge indicated that further questioning about the witness's comfort with the investigator and the investigation might help support admission of the photograph.
Counsel argued the wedding photograph showed bias and inadequate investigation, but the judge found it cumulative, excluded it, and left open renewal on another basis.
Court's actionThe judge ruled the photograph cumulative and not admitted, while allowing counsel to renew the request if it could be tied in otherwise.
Counsel discussed photographs offered to address Colin Albert's hand injuries, and the judge declined to admit exhibit EE while permitting limited use of a redacted image subject to entry into evidence.
Court's actionThe judge did not admit exhibit EE, required removal of the "colinalbert34" identifier if the image was shown, and instructed that it first be physically entered into evidence.
The court deferred a dispute over two proposed videos for jury-out review, voir dire of the witness, and argument.
The court admitted the reviewed materials over the Commonwealth's objection.
The court allowed limited Commonwealth follow-up about internet comments and harassment after finding the defense had opened the door.
The court ended questioning for the day and planned to resume with Matthew McCabe the next morning.
The court discussed the next day's witnesses and directed counsel to streamline repetitive setup testimony.
The parties discussed an objection to questioning about whether someone seemed intoxicated, and the court permitted use of the transcript's wording.
Court's actionThe court allowed use of the word "intoxicated" as it appeared in the grand-jury transcript.
The court addressed questioning about a reported property observation, marked an excerpt from the Proctor report for identification, and instructed counsel to ask one fact per question.
Court's actionExcerpt from the Proctor report was marked as Exhibit II for identification.
The court questioned the purpose of a group-text reference involving the Chungs, and counsel said he would not pursue that line further.
The court marked an unredacted entire group-chat printout as Exhibit JJ for identification and recessed for the jury break.
Court's actionThe entire group-chat printout was marked as Exhibit JJ for identification, and the court called a recess.
The parties discussed readability, redactions, and objections to a group-chat exhibit; the court allowed only material already in evidence to be displayed and deferred Exhibit KK.
Court's actionThe court allowed display only of material already in evidence and did not admit Exhibit KK yet.
The court addressed hearsay objections to proposed text-message questioning, permitted the questioning, and directed counsel to proceed more succinctly without highlighting proposed answers.
Court's actionThe court allowed the questioning but instructed counsel to be more succinct and to move it along.
The court limited questioning about text-message bubbles, sustained an objection to one bubble, and said the documents could not be displayed pending a satisfactory form.
Court's actionThe court sustained the Commonwealth's objection to the second text-message bubble, allowed the bottom bubble, and prohibited displaying the documents at that time.
The court discussed anticipated testimony about the nature of a relationship and offered a limiting instruction, which defense counsel did not request at that time.
The court set a procedure for text-message exhibits: clean copies for authentication, redacted copies for introduction and display, with phone-number redactions completed during lunch.
Court's actionThe court directed that clean copies be used for witness authentication and redacted copies be introduced and displayed; it also said it would give a digital-evidence instruction that afternoon.
The court addressed an unredacted phone number in a displayed text-message exhibit and directed that it be crossed out before proceeding.
Court's actionThe court directed that the missed phone-number redaction be crossed out before proceeding.
The parties clarified that proposed phone-call records came from John O'Keefe's phone extraction, and defense counsel withdrew the foundation objection after confirming access to both record sets.
Court's actionDefense counsel withdrew the objection after confirming access to both sides of the phone-call records.
The court discussed technical difficulty accessing USB evidence and encouraged cooperation if feasible, while stating it was not ordering the defense to provide assistance.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to do the best they could and stated it was not ordering the defense to assist.
The court addressed trial pace, scheduling, anticipated witnesses, and repetitive testimony, requested advance notice about Trooper Proctor, and recessed until Tuesday.
Court's actionThe court kept three scheduled days off, requested all-day Tuesday and Thursday sessions beginning in June, asked for advance notice concerning Trooper Proctor, and recessed until Tuesday.
Defense counsel raised concerns about family and supporter reactions visible to the jury, and the judge said court officers would watch extra closely.
Court's actionThe judge said court officers would pay extra close attention to ensure there were no visible reactions.
The parties discussed a proposed field-of-view demonstration during cross-examination, and the judge sustained the relevance objection while characterizing the questioning as argumentative.
Court's actionThe judge sustained the relevance objection and said the demonstration was argumentative.
The court clarified which document was redacted and marked the redacted document as Exhibit NN for identification.
Court's actionExhibit NN, a redacted document, was marked for identification.
The parties discussed using a witness's phone extraction and related identifying information, and the judge allowed the questioning subject to further objections.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the questioning and said the parties would see where it went.
The court discussed the expected remaining cross-examination time and directed counsel to continue until one o'clock.
Court's actionThe judge directed the examination to continue until one o'clock.
Counsel sought to use impounded phone records for questioning; Exhibit OO was marked for identification, and the Court addressed copying, redactions, and custody of the original.
Court's actionThe Court permitted use of the phone records, prohibited highlighting, and required the original marked exhibit to remain with the clerk.
Counsel discussed admitting an entire document despite some portions not being covered, while preserving prior objections, and the Court said it would remind jurors about digital evidence.
Court's actionThe Court said it would remind jurors of the digital-evidence instruction.
Counsel raised that the available call records ended on February 1 and discussed possible additional records through March; the Court had the clerk search while cross-examination continued.
Court's actionThe Court directed that additional impounded records be looked for while counsel proceeded with cross-examination.
Counsel objected on relevance grounds to questioning about the witness's lack of familiarity with Cellebrite and phone extractions, including reference to her being an elementary school teacher.
Court's actionThe Court instructed that the point could be made other ways, but not by stating that the witness was an elementary school teacher.
Counsel disputed whether a June 2023 statement could be used to rehabilitate testimony after alleged prior inconsistent statements, and the Court asked for the specific proposed statement.
The Court allowed the proposed statement while reserving the option to strike it after reviewing whether the earlier questioning had raised recent fabrication.
Court's actionThe Court allowed the statement subject to striking it if its recollection about a recent-fabrication issue proved incorrect.
The court noted discovery objections and ruled that anticipated Aruba-trip testimony could be admitted with limiting instructions, subject to question-by-question objections.
Counsel discussed still images and an enhanced video, with defense seeking to review the video before its use and reserving a foundation requirement for its submission.
Court's actionThe Court said the jurors would be sent out to allow defense review of the enhanced video and assess whether the witness could lay a foundation.
Defense objected to an enhanced, zoomed-in video, and the Court said it would review the recording before deciding whether it could be introduced without a witness.
Court's actionThe Court said it would review the enhanced video and, if it deemed it admissible, allow it to be introduced without a witness.
Counsel disputed proposed testimony about drinks at a prior dinner and whether it was relevant to normal drinking or state of mind; the Court excluded it for the time being.
Court's actionThe Court declined to allow the proposed prior-drinking testimony at that time, while permitting possible recall if later evidence made normal drinking during the period relevant.
The court required question-by-question objections to relationship-background testimony, planned a limiting instruction, and addressed upcoming witness scheduling.
Counsel disputed a conversation involving what Mr. O'Keefe had said about the defendant's impression; the Court allowed it with a reminder of the prior state-of-mind instruction.
Court's actionThe Court allowed the testimony with a reminder of its prior instruction concerning Mr. O'Keefe's state of mind.
Counsel discussed providing the Court an enhanced car video and preparing a clearer, redacted presentation of Higgins's text-message communications for possible jury use.
Court's actionThe Court directed counsel to address the proposed text-message presentation the following day while the Court was absent.
Counsel discussed using redacted text-message exhibits for the record while using typed transcripts to help the witness and counsel follow the material.
The court and counsel discussed clearer formats and copies of Higgins text-message exhibits so the jury could follow the communications.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the parties copy and review the available text-message format during the recess for possible use.
Counsel agreed on a redacted physical copy of text messages for the jury, and the court addressed the order and marking of the message exhibit.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the redacted copy go to the jury and that the message materials remain in their existing sequence as Exhibit 103.
The court addressed proposed questioning about a witness's proffer and said the stated foundation did not support admitting it.
Court's actionThe judge said she would not allow questioning about the proffer on the stated foundation and required counsel to approach first if pursuing it.
Counsel discussed a reported harassing photograph connected to the witness, disclosure concerns, and whether either side would raise it before the jury.
Court's actionThe judge said the Commonwealth was not allowed to get into the reported harassing photograph unless the defense pursued it.
The court considered defense questioning about an alleged reputation for violence and ruled that the proposed evidence was too remote.
Court's actionThe judge found the proposed line of questioning too remote and attenuated and did not permit it.
The court addressed avoiding proffer questioning and authorized redaction of a photograph of two sleeping children from pages of Exhibit 104A.
Court's actionThe judge permitted redaction of the photograph of two sleeping children from Exhibit 104A and directed that the two pages be marked for identification.
The court sustained an objection to questioning about phone-call contents after the witness had denied or did not remember the conversations.
Court's actionThe objection was sustained because the witness had denied or did not remember the conversations.
The court discussed proposed questioning about an interview at the witness's lawyer's home and arrangements for redirect on Tuesday.
Court's actionThe judge said questioning about the interview location was not permitted at that point and would be considered later.
The court paused proceedings so the witness could consult counsel before potential questioning concerning the use of federal resources.
Court's actionThe judge ordered a brief recess so the witness could consult with counsel before potential questioning about whether conduct was a crime.
The court discussed allowing another defense lawyer to continue questioning on Tuesday and planned a sidebar colloquy with the defendant.
Court's actionThe judge said she would allow a colleague to continue questioning on Tuesday if necessary and planned a sidebar colloquy with the defendant.
The court confirmed the defendant's decision to proceed Tuesday without lead counsel, discussed upcoming witnesses, and noted the order barring media coverage of children's testimony.
Court's actionThe judge accepted the defendant's decision to proceed Tuesday without Mr. Jackson and stated that media could not cover any children's testimony.
The judge discussed instructing the jury not to consider Mr. Jackson's absence and directed counsel not to mention it.
Court's actionThe judge said she would instruct the jury not to consider Mr. Jackson's absence and told counsel not to mention it.
Counsel discussed introducing key log and keycard records using a clean copy and handling the records at sidebar.
Court's actionThe judge agreed the records could be handled at sidebar rather than before the jury.
Counsel discussed accommodating two redacted witnesses, including camera restrictions, before one entered the courtroom.
Court's actionThe judge ordered a 10-minute recess to bring the witnesses into the courtroom and stated that a media order barred transmission of their testimony.
The judge and counsel discussed a brief jury break and press setup before Dr. Rice's medical testimony.
Court's actionThe judge said she would give the jury a break before the press set back up.
Counsel disputed unredacted narratives in redacted medical records, and the judge deferred the matter while marking the records for identification.
Court's actionThe judge deferred the issue, marked the redacted records as Exhibit SS for identification, and said she needed to review them later.
Counsel addressed outstanding redactions and whether there was any objection to the admissibility of unspecified results.
Court's actionThe judge stated there was no objection and directed counsel to go forward and move it along.
Counsel discussed showing video from two time periods for jury orientation, and defense counsel said there would be no objection.
Counsel discussed an unavailable next witness, projected case timing, and the schedule for the following week.
Court's actionThe judge stated the upcoming trial schedule and directed counsel to be as concise as possible.
The court addressed next-week witness scheduling, defense expert disclosure, and redactions to Exhibit No. 48.
Counsel clarified that exhibits bearing April 30 markings had been marked pretrial or pre-witness by agreement and were never introduced into evidence.
The judge questioned whether exhibit presentations were repetitive, and the prosecutor explained the photographs were used to identify tested areas and labels before the witness was excused for lunch.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that the witness step down and took a luncheon recess until 1:30.
The judge barred a proposed redirect question about who signed an item as beyond the limited redirect and hearsay, stating it could be addressed through Trooper Proctor.
Court's actionThe judge sustained the scope and hearsay objection, declining to reopen the limited redirect; she said the matter could be pursued through Trooper Proctor.
The defense objected that the origins of recovered items had not yet been established, while the prosecutor explained the witness was testifying before the troopers; the judge allowed a later motion to strike if foundation was not laid.
Court's actionThe judge stated that, if the Commonwealth ultimately failed to lay a foundation, the defense could move to strike the evidence; she also stated the witness would have to return on Wednesday.
Counsel raised streamlining the witness's piece-by-piece taillight reconstruction, and the judge instructed counsel to stop leading and move the examination along.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to quit leading and to move things along, but would not direct how to try the case otherwise.
Counsel discussed photographs of evidence bags, including two believed not yet in evidence, and agreed that exhibit stickers could cover defense counsel's internal writing.
The court deferred a dispute over a proposed comparison display until testimony developed; chain-of-custody documents were marked for identification.
The judge limited questioning to four identified photographs and questions about where items were found, while allowing counsel to ask whether another marked item would help the witness.
Court's actionThe judge permitted questions using photographs 3-2, 3-3, 7-12, and 7-14 about where items were found; anything beyond that was not permitted.
Counsel disputed whether a report qualified as a business record, and the judge declined to admit or permit it to be shown pending review.
Court's actionThe judge would not admit or allow the report to be shown at that time, stated she might change the ruling after reviewing it, and directed that the Post-Its be removed.
The judge identified hearsay in chart references to glass retrieved by Trooper Proctor and warned that objections to objectionable questions would be sustained.
Court's actionThe judge stated she would sustain objections to chart questions containing objectionable hearsay, including references to glass retrieved by Proctor.
The parties discussed photographs intended for Sergeant Bukhenik, distinguishing Good Samaritan photographs from autopsy photographs, and the judge said she would locate them during lunch.
Court's actionThe judge said she would find the photographs during lunch.
Counsel objected to the witness's use of “we” rather than identifying individual actions, and the judge declined to sustain the objection.
Court's actionThe judge did not sustain the objection and stated that counsel could address who did what on cross-examination.
The judge limited the witness to observations and prohibited medical testimony or opinions about what caused an injury based on experience.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that the witness could describe observations but could not give medical testimony or state what caused an injury based on experience.
Counsel raised a chain-of-custody concern about clothing bags, including the orange tee shirt, and the judge said the item would not enter evidence at that point.
Court's actionThe judge stated that the item would not go into evidence at that point and that the issue might need to be addressed through cross-examination.
The judge discussed instructions for gruesome photographs and a Milton Barracks statement, agreeing not to mention Miranda warnings while requiring the statement to be voluntary.
Court's actionThe judge said she would give a gruesome-photograph instruction and would not mention Miranda warnings in the instruction concerning the Milton Barracks statement.
The judge reviewed a proposed instruction on alleged voluntary statements and declined to add a specific reference to medication or mention Miranda warnings.
Court's actionThe judge stated that the jury instruction would address whether the alleged statement was made voluntarily under all surrounding circumstances, without specifically mentioning medication or Miranda warnings.
Counsel disputed whether they had previously received a particular sally port video, and the judge ordered a 10-minute break so it could be reviewed.
Court's actionThe judge ordered a 10-minute jury break and directed that the parties watch the video.
Counsel challenged Sergeant Bukhenik's foundation to testify about search warrants and videos, and the judge directed that a foundation be laid.
Court's actionThe judge directed counsel to lay a foundation.
Counsel objected that Sergeant Bukhenik lacked foundation for videos in Exhibit 6, and the judge ruled that the videos were in evidence and could be played.
Court's actionThe judge ruled that the videos were in evidence and could be played.
Counsel objected to foundation for material associated with the Waterfall video, and the judge allowed it in connection with the video while noting the objection.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the material in in connection with the video and noted the objection.
The court addressed witness scheduling, anticipated expert testimony, and discovery concerns.
Exhibit 463 remained in evidence after the defense withdrew its authenticity objection; the court ordered paper exhibits kept with the clerk during the day.
The judge directed counsel to present the lab photographs more directly, avoid repeated views and extended orientation, and speak loudly enough to be heard.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to move the evidence presentation along, identify what is shown directly, and keep his voice up.
Counsel disputed proposed testimony about a voluntary buccal swab and laboratory results; the judge limited testimony to the voluntary swab and any observed swabs.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that the witness may say he voluntarily provided a buccal swab, but may not say why based on results.
The parties disputed using an enlarged video during cross-examination; the judge permitted one use after discussion of its form and intended questioning.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the enlarged video to be used one time.
Counsel sought to question the witness about preparation, conversations with the prosecutor, and possible bias; the judge allowed a limited amount of leeway.
Court's actionThe judge gave counsel a little leeway to question the witness about preparation and possible bias.
The court postponed the defense's proposed video display until the Commonwealth could review it and gave jurors a projected late-June deliberation timeframe.
Counsel discussed the video’s start and end times and its five-minute, 51-second runtime, while the judge declined to have the witness perform a demonstration.
Court's actionThe judge would tell the jury that the parties stipulated the video begins at 5:30:23 p.m., ends at 5:48:15, and has a total runtime of five minutes and 51 seconds.
The judge confirmed that the witness could view the video after counsel agreed to that approach.
Court's actionThe judge stated she would let the witness see the video, and counsel agreed.
Counsel discussed an inverted video version, exhibit XX, and proposed text-message material for Trooper Proctor’s cross-examination, including materials involving Detective Albert.
Court's actionThe judge was prepared to allow exhibit XX because the Commonwealth had seen it, directed counsel to show the other video to the Commonwealth, and directed counsel to show proposed text-message material to the Commonwealth.
Counsel disputed whether a redirect question about the taillight was within scope after cross-examination, and the judge did not allow the question while permitting argument.
Court's actionThe judge ruled, "I'm not going to allow it. You can argue it."
The defense objected to testimony about pedestrians being thrown from shoes in crashes, and the judge allowed it as relating to investigative steps.
Court's actionThe objection was overruled; the judge allowed the testimony because it concerned investigative steps.
The defense objected to a witness using a laser pointer to identify a vehicle-contact area shown on video, and the judge prohibited further questioning on that point.
Court's actionThe objection was sustained; the judge prohibited the question, declined to strike anything, and directed that counsel not ask it further.
Counsel discussed struck testimony concerning "deleted videos" and whether further clarification was needed; the judge chose a general instruction not to consider stricken material.
Court's actionThe judge said she would instruct jurors not to consider material ordered stricken from the record.
The defense objected to the Commonwealth’s planned use of text messages concerning bias, and the judge requested copies to review during a jury break.
The judge overruled the defense relevance objection to the Commonwealth’s proposed evidence and allowed counsel to state the objection for the record.
Court's actionThe objection was overruled, and the judge allowed counsel to make a record.
The defense renewed its objection to the Commonwealth presenting text messages on direct examination, and the judge overruled it before discussing expert scheduling.
Court's actionThe judge overruled the objection.
The defense asked to conduct expert voir dire and possible testimony before its case to avoid repeated travel costs, and the judge said she would consider it.
Court's actionThe judge said she would consider the request to conduct the expert proceedings before the defense case, but gave no final decision.
The parties discussed a text-message set that the defense did not intend to use, and the Commonwealth agreed to move on from it.
Court's actionThe Commonwealth said it could move on from the text-message set, and the judge accepted that approach.
The parties reviewed proposed text-message excerpts; the judge allowed one communication but excluded three lines from page 2646 during the Commonwealth’s case in chief.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the last communication on page 2644 but ruled that three lines on page 2646 could not come in during the Commonwealth’s case in chief.
The judge and defense counsel briefly addressed scheduling, and the judge directed counsel to retrieve his phone to check availability.
Court's actionThe judge directed counsel to retrieve and bring over his phone to check scheduling.
The court coordinated witness and expert availability, planning to continue the Commonwealth’s case and reserve possible time for a medical doctor and other experts.
Court's actionThe judge planned to continue through the week, try the medical doctor Friday afternoon if reached, and use the morning or full day of the 18th for the other experts.
The defense sought to admit a full text-message packet rather than selected excerpts, and the judge allowed this packet with "confidential" redacted while reserving other packets.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the full document for this text-message packet over objection, required the word "confidential" to be blacked out, and said objections to other packets would be addressed Wednesday.
The court discussed anticipated examination times and the upcoming witness order, requested Trooper Paul’s report in advance, and set the next session for Wednesday.
Court's actionThe judge requested Trooper Paul’s report in advance, directed counsel not to be repetitive with Lieutenant Tully, and stated the court would reconvene Wednesday.
Counsel discussed text-message packets, including hearsay and completeness objections, and the judge allowed chalk publication while reserving whether the packets would be admitted.
Court's actionThe judge withheld a decision on admitting the text-message packets but allowed them to be published as chalks.
Counsel disputed whether remaining text messages received by the witness could be used, and the judge ruled that the items would not come in.
Court's actionThe judge ruled that the remaining packet items would not come in.
The judge addressed excluded material appearing on the courtroom screen and instructed counsel to ensure the operator does not display material without authorization.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that excluded material must not be displayed without counsel's direction and warned that it could not happen again.
Counsel disputed use of a page of prior testimony about relationships, and the judge permitted questions on specified lines while barring display of the material on the screen.
Court's actionThe judge allowed questioning on specified transcript lines, instructed that the material not be put on the screen, and reserved the photo issue.
Counsel debated photographs offered to show family relationships, and the judge sustained objections, excluding the photographs and barring references absent a later ruling.
Court's actionThe judge sustained objections to the photographs and references to them, directed counsel to seek a sidebar if later testimony changed the ruling, and told counsel to move along.
Counsel disputed a question about reporting investigation progress to a sister, and the judge allowed it while cautioning about its evidentiary value if answered negatively.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the question but instructed counsel to keep in mind that a negative answer would not supply competent evidence for closing argument.
Counsel disputed characterizations in questions about text messages, and the judge instructed counsel to remove objectionable language and rephrase the questions.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to remove objectionable language and ask the question differently.
Counsel disputed questioning about a gap in video footage and its timing, and the judge directed that the two topics be asked as separate questions.
Court's actionThe judge directed counsel to separate the inquiry into two questions.
Counsel disputed the context for a text message, and the judge allowed the specified phrase while directing that it be presented alone without additional context on the screen.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the phrase "hopefully she kills herself" but directed that it be presented alone and not displayed with additional context.
Counsel objected to testimony concerning an alleged encounter involving Mr. Yannetti, and the judge instructed Mr. Yannetti not to gesticulate for the cameras.
Court's actionThe judge instructed Mr. Yannetti not to gesticulate for the cameras.
After a dispute over a witness answer concerning Mr. Yannetti, the judge ordered the answer stricken and directed the prosecutor to ask a properly limited question.
Court's actionThe judge said she would strike the answer, directed that the prosecutor ask the proper question, and said she would cut off any deviation.
Counsel disputed whether the witness could testify that others reviewed Life360 and Cellebrite material, and the judge allowed the limited inquiry over a hearsay objection.
Court's actionThe judge overruled the hearsay objection and allowed the limited inquiry, stating it was part of the "double-edged sword" of Bowden.
Counsel disputed the foundation for climatological records, and the judge directed the prosecutor to build a foundation while deferring review of the documents.
Court's actionThe judge directed the prosecutor to build a foundation, said she would instruct on business records if appropriate, and deferred review of the records.
Counsel discussed the remaining time for the witness and the anticipated order of later witnesses, and the judge said she would release the jury before addressing the order.
Court's actionThe judge said she would let the jury go before addressing the witness order.
Counsel discussed admitting an item containing Ms. Read's cell number after redaction, with defense counsel requesting a quick review.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the cell number be blacked out with a Sharpie.
Counsel discussed an address stated in court, redaction from exhibits, and defense counsel's concern about public access to the related transcript portion.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that the address not be used again, that it be redacted from the exhibits, and that the press would not get that part of the transcript.
Counsel disputed whether the expert witness could be asked to perform a calculation or demonstration concerning device movement.
Court's actionThe judge allowed counsel to ask the witness the numbers to test or challenge his expertise and allowed the witness to use his own cell phone.
Counsel raised a hearsay objection to testimony about reviewed material and discussed whether it could be offered in connection with the stated Bowden defense.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the testimony only if the witness knew it other than solely from what the IT director told him, for the stated Bowden-related reason.
Counsel discussed the defense objection to admission of certified weather records based on the procedure used to provide them to the court.
Court's actionThe judge overruled the objection and admitted the certified weather records into evidence.
Counsel disputed admission of a selected call-detail record sheet rather than the complete records after testimony about its contents.
Court's actionThe judge admitted the selected call-detail record sheet into evidence as Exhibit 579.
Counsel and the judge discussed the expected length and order of afternoon witnesses, including whether another witness should follow Mr. Porto.
Court's actionThe judge indicated that she would rather not begin with Trooper Paul.
The judge and prosecutor discussed whether the trial remained on target for the previously stated estimate and planned to address the jury before further sidebar discussion.
The court set next-day jury-instruction submissions and discussed the later charge conference.
Counsel sought permission to display tables from the witness's report, while defense asked that questioning avoid leading the witness.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to refrain from leading.
Defense objected to testimony referring to work done by an unidentified “we” and requested that the witness address her own work.
Court's actionThe judge directed counsel to build a foundation.
Counsel discussed offering report tables and figures as exhibits, with defense stating it would not object; the court also addressed a break and upcoming witnesses.
Court's actionThe court said, "We’ll take fifteen minutes."
The supplied transcript records a sidebar beginning and ending but no substantive discussion or court action.
The court and counsel discussed a parents' address visible on an exhibit; the prosecutor said it was not needed on screen and could be redacted.
Defense objected to proposed testimony comparing video impact with vehicle damage, and the court arranged a voir dire while addressing juror and trial scheduling.
Court's actionThe judge said there would be a voir dire, the jurors would be sent home for the day, and the court would not split closing arguments and the charge.
The court limited questioning of the witness about video evidence and force sufficient to damage a taillight, while permitting general testimony about bumpers and car collisions.
Court's actionThe judge would not allow questions to this witness about whether the video showed enough force to damage the taillight; counsel could address bumpers and vehicle collisions in general terms.
The transcript identifies this as an impounded sidebar during Trooper Paul's cross-examination.
The transcript identifies this sidebar during Joseph Paul's redirect as a sealed portion of the transcript.
Counsel disputed whether recross questions about key cycles and mileage exceeded the scope of redirect, and the court allowed the question with limited follow-up.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the question and permitted Mr. Lally one or two follow-up questions.
Counsel disputed whether discovery gave notice of an opinion about user deletion, and the court directed them to locate the relevant material during the break.
Court's actionThe judge directed counsel to move on and find the cited discovery material during the break.
Counsel objected to a report-derived list as hearsay and not a business record, while the Commonwealth said it came from the witness's phone extraction and informed his opinion.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the material in over the objection.
Counsel discussed late-disclosed Whiffin attachments and whether they supported an opinion about deletion, with the court deferring the issue for the defense expert.
Court's actionThe judge said the issue would be addressed with the defense expert and directed counsel to see whether the material could be found.
Counsel renewed a hearsay objection concerning the witness's opinion about user deletion, and the court left the material admitted pending later review.
Court's actionThe judge declined to strike the material; it would stay as is while the court later reviewed the report and notes.
Counsel objected to labels on computer-generated pages as hearsay, and the court required redaction before the pages could go to the jury.
Court's actionThe judge required hearsay labels to be redacted before the pages went to the jury, while permitting the paragraph or chart to be shown without them.
Counsel raised courtroom audience conduct and disputed notice of computer-and-Ring-device evidence; the court declined to find the Commonwealth had not provided the material and addressed the conduct concern through court staff.
Court's actionThe judge would not address the audience member directly, directed court officers to watch, and asked the Commonwealth's victim-witness personnel to speak with her.
The court addressed high emotions, laughter, and inappropriate comments involving families and counsel, and instructed that no further statement was needed.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that no further statement was needed and asked everyone to get through the remaining two weeks.
The court discussed the remaining examination time for the witness and whether jurors could continue the session until 4:15.
Court's actionThe judge said she would ask whether the jurors could continue until 4:15.
After sending the jurors home, the court discussed next-day voir dire and whether the Commonwealth might rest on Thursday.
Court's actionThe judge sent the jurors home, set voir dire to start at 9:30 the next day, and said it would be finished that day.
Counsel discussed remaining Commonwealth witnesses, possible Thursday testimony, and the defense's anticipated witness order after voir dire.
Court's actionThe judge directed that any need for more time after voir dire be reported as soon as possible so jurors could be informed.
Counsel outlined anticipated defense witnesses and trial timing, including that Dr. Van Nee would not be called, while the court discussed the expected schedule.
Court's actionThe judge set the next day's start for 9:30 and confirmed the court would be in session on June 26.
The judge excluded proposed phone-search evidence from the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief for the time being, requested further argument and a proposed instruction, and set a one-hour closing-argument limit.
Counsel discussed redactions to a phone extraction report, including possible calls seeking representation and the report's time range before it went to the jury.
Court's actionThe court allowed the extraction report in, with any Jack Diamond phone number to be removed if found.
The court arranged a longer morning break so counsel could confer before the remaining Google-search questioning and before the jurors returned.
Court's actionThe court said it would take a half-hour to 45-minute break and meet with counsel before bringing the jurors out.
Counsel discussed a hypothetical concerning three iPhone clocks and differing times in phone data during questioning of Trooper Guarino.
Court's actionThe court permitted questioning about the iPhone clocks but prohibited asking the witness whether one possibility made more sense than another.
Counsel discussed an objection concerning questions about the February 2022 phone extraction and communications involving Nicole Albert, Allie McCabe, and Brian Albert.
Court's actionThe court stated it had sustained the objection on different grounds and directed counsel to move on.
Counsel addressed admission of redacted Good Samaritan medical records and notice before displaying autopsy photographs and diagrams.
Court's actionThe court made exhibit SS for identification an exhibit after redactions and instructed counsel to give notice before showing autopsy photographs.
The court discussed remaining witness time, set a short break, and addressed when it would hear the required finding argument.
Court's actionThe court said it would hear the required finding argument the next morning if the Commonwealth rested, and ordered a five- or ten-minute break.
The court and counsel agreed to stop for the day rather than display a series of five photographs with little time remaining.
Court's actionThe court decided to stop for the day and send the jurors home rather than display the series of photographs then.
The court discussed remaining witness estimates, the defense's planned witnesses, possible rebuttal, and tentative timing for the charge conference and closing arguments.
Court's actionThe court instructed the Commonwealth to have any rebuttal ready for Tuesday or Wednesday and said it would determine charge-conference and closing timing as the trial progressed.
The parties discussed questioning about when police spoke with investigator Paul Markowski and a possible 2015 accident report involving the witness.
Court's actionThe court permitted counsel to bring out that police did not talk to the investigator and directed that any accident-report issue wait until counsel approached.
The Commonwealth sought to question the witness about a 2015 pedestrian-striking incident while plowing; the defense objected, and the court excluded it as remote.
Court's actionThe court would not allow questioning about the 2015 pedestrian-striking incident because it was remote.
The parties disputed whether the witness had reviewed docket records and UC Davis materials, after which the court recessed with the jury sent out.
Court's actionThe court sent the jury out, ordered a short recess, and stated that proceedings would continue afterward.
The parties discussed proposed testimony comparing dog bites with law-enforcement-dog bites, and the court limited the examination away from police K-9s.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to stay away from police K-9 comparisons and discuss only the matter at issue.
The Commonwealth sought permission to question the witness about previously saying she had not reviewed items and later reviewing them; the court permitted it.
Court's actionThe court ruled that questioning the witness about having subsequently reviewed the items was permissible.
The parties disputed whether cross-examination exceeded limits on the witness's testimony, and the court reaffirmed that her permitted testimony was strictly about right-arm injuries.
Court's actionThe court stated that the witness's testimony was strictly limited to injuries on the right arm, with any other scope opening the door.
The defense objected to counsel's use of a report during cross-examination, and the court allowed the questioning with the report shown to the witness.
Court's actionThe court allowed cross-examination using the report, instructed counsel to show it to the witness, and noted that cross-examination receives more leeway.
The parties disputed redirect and potential recross concerning the witness's opinion and a dog-bite photograph; the court ended the examination with no further questions.
Court's actionThe court ended the examination and instructed that there would be no more questions.
The Commonwealth objected to asking the witness for an opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, and the court barred that formulation.
Court's actionThe court ruled that the witness could not give testimony to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty based on the testimony heard.
The parties discussed admitting a phone-extraction item in context and locating the exhibit numbers for Jennifer McCabe's call log; the court allowed the call log into evidence.
Court's actionThe court allowed counsel to put the call log into evidence.
The court addressed phone numbers that appeared unredacted in an exhibit displayed on television, prohibited further display, and took the exhibit from the witness.
Court's actionThe court prohibited further display of the exhibit and took it from the witness.
The court required redaction of phone numbers in an exhibit and allowed questioning about its content without displaying it or discussing particular numbers.
Court's actionThe court required the exhibit to be redacted, directed that it not be referred to or displayed further, and allowed questions about its content without displaying it or discussing particular phone numbers.
Counsel raised a concern that a question may have referred imprecisely to GPS health data rather than Apple Health or GPS location data and requested accurate wording.
The Commonwealth objected on scientific and foundation grounds, and the judge sustained the objection and directed counsel to build a foundation.
Court's actionSustained based on the stated scientific and foundation objections; counsel was instructed to build a foundation.
After the Commonwealth confirmed the same objection, the judge directed counsel to build a foundation before proceeding.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to build a foundation.
The parties discussed a hypothetical about an arm being struck by a vehicle, and the judge allowed a shortened version while planning an instruction and excusing the jury.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the revised hypothetical and stated that she would also give an instruction; she excused the jury to prepare it.
The judge allowed the first portion of the question, noted the Commonwealth's objection, and asked both sides to propose a limiting instruction for the final charge.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the first portion of the question and deferred a limiting instruction to the final jury instructions; both sides were asked to propose one.
The Commonwealth objected to inquiry connected to VCH data and the expert's article, and the judge instructed counsel to stop that line of inquiry.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to stop that line of inquiry.
The judge addressed the Commonwealth's leading-question objection and instructed counsel not to lead the expert witness on direct examination.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel not to lead the witness.
The Commonwealth objected that questioning exceeded the permitted scope, and the judge restricted the witness to general testimony rather than testimony specifically about Mr. O'Keefe.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that the witness could testify generally but not specifically about Mr. O'Keefe.
The defense objected on relevance grounds to questioning about whether a reported statement would affect the witness's analysis, and the judge overruled the objection.
Court's actionOverruled; the judge stated, "I will let it in."
The defense objected that follow-up questions improperly made an argument after the witness denied awareness, and the judge sustained the objection.
Court's actionSustained.
The court and parties discussed whether they could finish the witness's examination by continuing until about 1:20, so jurors might not need to return.
Court's actionThe judge sought to continue until about 1:20 if possible.
The judge limited the biomechanics witness to general forces and injury effects, barring testimony on whether a traumatic incident specifically caused Mr. O'Keefe's injuries.
Court's actionThe judge ruled that the witness could testify about general causation and forces, but not specifically whether an incident caused Mr. O'Keefe's injuries.
The Commonwealth objected to a question as speculative, and the judge allowed it without a distance because distance was disputed.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the question without any distance.
The parties disputed cross-examination about materials the witness had not reviewed, and the judge permitted limited credibility questioning while excluding the proposed prior-witness line of inquiry.
Court's actionThe judge allowed limited questioning about statements previously admitted for credibility, but excluded the proposed line of inquiry used with the prior witness.
The defense rested and renewed its motion for a required finding of not guilty without argument; the judge denied the motion and scheduled a charge conference.
Court's actionThe judge denied the motion for a required finding of not guilty and allowed the defense to formally rest before the jury.
The judge conducted a sealed colloquy confirming the defendant's voluntary decision not to testify and her decision concerning the requested jury instruction.
Court's actionThe judge conducted and sealed a colloquy concerning the defendant's decision not to testify and the requested jury instruction.
Counsel reported that Exhibit 604's disk was blank and requested a replacement video exhibit; the judge said she would allow it later and called a brief recess.
Court's actionThe judge said she would allow replacement of the blank Exhibit 604 disk with the video-containing exhibit, but not then.
The judge declined a consciousness-of-guilt instruction, said she would give a Bowden instruction, and set a five-minute warning for closing arguments.
Counsel clarified that involuntary manslaughter was a lesser included charge for the OUI charge, not second-degree murder, and the judge directed counsel to review verdict slips before her review.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to work with Mr. McDermott on the verdict slips before she reviewed them.
Counsel exchanged thanks at sidebar, and the conference concluded before a brief recess.
The judge and both parties agreed not to bring a juror into the courtroom because of the attention surrounding the matter, and the judge arranged for a court officer to relay that it was okay.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that the juror need not be brought into the courtroom and that Paul could tell her it was okay.
Counsel disputed whether questioning implied the defense was paying a salaried witness for time, citing May 1 billing and an invoice; the judge overruled the objection.
Court's actionThe objection was overruled.
The court discussed finishing Dr. Rentschler's examination that day, limited Brennan to five minutes, and arranged to bring Rentschler in rather than have the witness return Thursday.
Court's actionThe judge gave Brennan five minutes and directed that Rentschler be brought in.
The judge scheduled argument for the next day after the jury breaks around 4:00 or 3:45, limiting each side to ten to fifteen minutes.
Court's actionThe judge said the jury would be excused around 4:00 or 3:45 the next day and allowed each side ten to fifteen minutes at most to argue the matter.
Counsel disputed whether testimony about John O'Keefe's relationship with another person's mother was hearsay or contextual motive evidence; the court deferred the issue pending a foundation outside the jury's presence.
Court's actionThe court directed the prosecution to build a foundation for the witness's understanding of the relationship, deferred the issue outside the jury's presence, and said it would return to it later.
Counsel discussed an unauthored April 2023 narration and potential impeachment of Mrs. McCabe; the judge required defense counsel to come to sidebar before using it for impeachment.
Court's actionThe judge instructed Mr. Jackson to come to sidebar before attempting impeachment with the narration.
The judge addressed reported facial reactions and eye-rolling toward the jury, instructing counsel to stop and turn the chair toward the front.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to stop making facial reactions toward the jury and to face the front.
Counsel agreed the police report would be marked for identification rather than admitted at that time, and the judge directed the court reporter to mark it.
Court's actionThe judge directed the court reporter to mark the police report for identification.
The judge addressed references to another law-enforcement agency and instructed counsel not to mention the FBI, agents, or a federal grand jury before ordering a 20-minute recess.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel not to mention the FBI, agents, or a federal grand jury, and permitted reference to law enforcement from another agency.
Following the morning recess, counsel were called to a sidebar that the reporter transcript identifies as sealed.
Counsel disputed whether a proposed question concerning a conversation with a husband was privileged or otherwise inadmissible; the judge sustained the objection.
Court's actionThe judge sustained the objection and stated she would sustain objections to the proposed line of questioning.
Counsel disputed support for a claimed screenshot time; the judge marked Exhibit G for identification and limited its use to refreshing the witness's recollection.
Court's actionThe judge marked the material for identification and allowed questions only about whether it refreshed the witness's recollection.
Counsel agreed to stipulate to times if read correctly from a report, while noting that the underlying information was already in evidence in another form.
Counsel objected that a prior statement was being paraphrased and taken out of context; defense counsel agreed to read the statement in full.
Counsel discussed the context of prior statements offered as impeachment, and the judge instructed defense counsel to provide some context for each statement.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to provide some context for each prior statement used as an inconsistent statement.
Counsel disputed a question's assumption about who found John O'Keefe; the judge sustained the objection and directed counsel to ask about the time instead.
Court's actionThe judge sustained the objection, directed counsel to ask the question differently, and instructed counsel to ask about the time without using the disputed predicate.
Counsel disputed using a report summary and grand jury testimony to impeach the witness after she adopted the report as refreshing her recollection.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the questioning because the witness adopted the report after it refreshed her recollection, and said redirect could address it.
Counsel located the cited statement in a different report, apologized for the interruption, and discussed that the report was not in evidence or used to refresh recollection.
Counsel debated admitting selected text messages and related messages for context, with the judge allowing the offered messages for state of mind subject to instructions.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the text messages for state-of-mind evidence, directed that the jury receive limiting instructions, and prohibited display until those instructions were given.
Counsel discussed a proposed set of February 1 text messages and whether the broader time span supported a request for additional context.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to place a question between text messages spanning the identified time gap.
Counsel challenged a question concerning collusion among witnesses, and the judge limited the inquiry to whether the witness herself was colluding.
Court's actionThe judge excluded the proposed question as phrased but permitted counsel to ask whether the witness was colluding.
Counsel sought to identify locations on a phone-location map through the witness before anticipated testimony from the person who prepared the report.
Court's actionThe judge allowed limited identification questions about the map, barred screen display, and said the questioning could be moved to strike if the expected follow-up evidence was not offered.
Counsel disputed confronting the witness with statements in police reports that were not her statements and using them to frame a credibility issue.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel not to repeat the challenged impeachment method and said the officer would need to testify to establish the report; otherwise it was not admissible.
Counsel disputed the witness's explanatory answers during cross-examination, while the judge addressed question wording, completion of answers, and the trial record.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to tighten questions and stated that a nonresponsive answer could be moved to strike after the witness answered.
Counsel and the court addressed promptly displaying electronically cued material that counsel represented was already in evidence and marking it later.
Court's actionThe judge said the displayed material could be used and would be marked later.
Counsel checked whether a Cellebrite-related display was in evidence before using it to question the witness, and later confirmed that it was not.
Court's actionAfter confirming the material was not in evidence, the judge directed that the disputed portion not be displayed again and preferred use of the paper copy.
Counsel disputed a question concerning another witness's testimony and awareness of it, while the court raised concerns about questioning the witness regarding sequestration.
Court's actionThe judge directed counsel to ask only whether the witness was aware of the specified matter, while expressing concern about questioning her on sequestration.
Counsel discussed redirect context for calls and text messages, proposed video clips, and whether prior questioning opened the door to further testimony.
Court's actionThe judge required a transcript before deciding whether additional redirect was opened, allowed certain videos over objection, and deferred a decision on two disputed videos until Monday.
Counsel debated using additional phone-extraction text messages on redirect to provide context for text messages previously shown to the jury.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the proposed text-message examination, directed counsel to begin with January 29, and said the jury would receive the same limiting instruction as before.
Counsel and the court addressed whether two text messages were authored by Jennifer McCabe or Kerry and how to identify the associated phone numbers.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to show the messages to the witness and ask who the phone numbers belonged to.
Counsel disputed displaying a chart containing a digital-forensics opinion before its foundation was established, and the court limited its use until the witness offered her opinion.
Court's actionThe exhibit would be marked for identification and could be used with the witness, but the jury could not see it until she offered her opinion.
Counsel argued that the witness's timestamp opinion lacked a proper expert foundation, while the Commonwealth argued that her training, experience, and explained process supported the opinion.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to ask the witness and said it would take the matter from there.
Counsel renewed the objection that the witness had not established support for her timestamp methodology, and the court allowed the evidence.
Court's actionThe court stated, "Your objection is very well stated. I'm letting the evidence in."
The court clarified its expert-evidence ruling, finding the witness qualified and the Commonwealth's showing sufficient, while counsel said the defense had recently received the demonstrative material.
Court's actionThe court found the witness qualified as an expert in forensic digital evidence and found that the Commonwealth had met its burden under Canavan and Daubert.
Defense counsel requested a curative instruction after reviewing a courtroom comment and expression, arguing they could have suggested to jurors that his objections were improper.
Court's actionThe court said it would address the matter with the jury.
The parties disputed whether cross-examination excerpts fairly presented the witness's testimony, and the court permitted the questioning while allowing explanation on redirect.
Court's actionThe court allowed counsel to impeach in the chosen manner and stated that any explanation could be addressed on redirect.
Counsel and the court discussed being ahead of schedule, the next witness's expected length, and briefly addressing scheduling after the jury was excused.
Court's actionThe court said it might excuse the jurors so counsel could discuss scheduling.
The court marked Clip 15 as Exhibit 83 and addressed witness scheduling, directing that an expert review the newly received ARCCA report before any remedy is considered.
The reporter transcript records only the commencement and end of the sidebar.
Counsel discussed an interview report, whether it reflected an invocation, and a Rule 14 issue; the judge said counsel would not get into the interview.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that counsel would not get into the interview after confirming the transcript reflected an invocation.
Counsel discussed striking part of an answer, directing the witness to describe personal actions more clearly, and later showing sustained findings and text messages.
Court's actionThe judge struck the last portion of the answer.
Counsel and the court examined conflicting sneaker-bag labels and discussed handling the remaining clothing before resolving the sneaker issue during a break.
Court's actionThe judge directed counsel to proceed through the remaining clothing, address the sneaker afterward, and took a half-hour break.
Counsel discussed storing an item in plasticine and replacing or remarking a shoe evidence bag to clarify the record while preserving the old bag.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that the item be stored as it was for the time being and stated the bag was likely to be changed and remarked.
The court discussed the remaining presentation time, a required 4:00 break, a child witness anticipated for the next day, and releasing waiting witnesses.
Court's actionThe judge stated that court had to break at 4:00 and allowed counsel to go past 1:00 to finish the presentation.
The judge called a juror break until two o'clock and confirmed agreement that the Commonwealth could excuse witnesses.
Court's actionThe judge called a juror break until two o'clock and confirmed that the Commonwealth could excuse witnesses.
Counsel raised concerns about narrative answers during cross-examination, and the judge said she would direct the witness to focus on and answer the questions.
Court's actionThe judge said she would tell the witness to focus on and do his best to answer the question.
Counsel discussed showing a photograph to the jurors while giving the family advance notice and accounting for the courtroom cameras.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the photograph be marked as Exhibit 110.
Counsel disputed whether the witness could compare handwriting on the word “Fairview”; the court directed a redacted exhibit for the jury’s comparison instead of witness opinion testimony.
Court's actionThe court directed that a redacted comparison be presented for the jury to decide and prohibited asking the witness whether the handwriting was similar.
Counsel debated questioning about Brian Higgins text messages and investigative follow-up; the court required review of the identified materials and allowed a Bowden inquiry subject to the witness's answers.
Court's actionThe court allowed pursuit of a Bowden argument depending on the witness's answers, required the identified texts for review, and ordered a half-hour break.
Counsel disputed authentication and use of text messages during cross-examination; the court admitted the material with authentication and non-hearsay limiting instructions tied to the officer's knowledge.
Court's actionThe court allowed the material into evidence with an authentication instruction and a limiting instruction that it was not offered for its truth, but for the officer's knowledge.
The court and counsel arranged electronic display of a document so jurors could follow it, with agreement that the witness need not read punctuation or emojis aloud.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to obtain the document electronically, permitted the setup, and indicated the witness need not read punctuation or emojis.
Counsel disputed questioning about calls between two phones and later explanations; the court limited this witness's testimony to documented call details and when the information was learned.
Court's actionThe court limited questioning to call-log times, phone numbers, and durations, required an exact document and timeframe, and excluded claimed answers, explanations, and phone destruction through this witness.
After an objection to questioning about phone destruction, the court found the foundation lacking and prohibited that line of inquiry through this witness at that time.
Court's actionThe court prohibited the proposed phone-destruction questioning through this witness for lack of foundation and preserved counsel's rights.
Counsel disputed how to ask about the family's dog and the witness's investigation; the court permitted questions about whether and when the witness learned the dog had been gotten rid of.
Court's actionThe court allowed counsel to ask whether and when the witness learned the family had gotten rid of the dog, accepting “get rid of” as a common term.
Counsel disputed whether a report could be used to impeach the witness about when vehicles arrived; after clarifying the prior question and answer, the court permitted the impeachment.
Court's actionThe court permitted the proposed impeachment with Ricky D'Antuono's statement.
The court discussed the remaining cross-examination, expected witnesses, and trial timing, excused Dr. Welcher from the following Friday, and scheduled a 10:00 a.m. Monday start.
Court's actionThe court excused Dr. Welcher from appearing the following Friday and set Monday's start time for 10:00 a.m.
The parties disputed questions about who hired ARCCA and whether they could imply an insurance-company connection; the judge halted the line until credibility is challenged.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that neither side open the door about the federal investigation and that the defense wait until the witness's credibility is challenged.
The parties disputed characterizations of ARCCA's relationship with the defense, and the judge limited direct examination to the March retention while barring references to the other hiring entity.
Court's actionThe judge barred questions about the other entity that hired the witness, prohibited discussion of the federal investigation and prior contact restrictions, and directed counsel to return before raising the issue on cross-examination.
The parties disputed whether the witness could criticize Dr. Welcher's work, and the judge required questions to compare scientific methods, data, and testing rather than assess the person.
Court's actionThe judge directed that testimony address the science, data, and testing rather than another person's actions or credibility.
The court discussed the remaining defense-witness schedule, Dr. Rentschler's PowerPoint, and the timing and scope of materials for Dr. Welcher's testimony.
Court's actionThe judge ordered that Dr. Welcher's information be provided a day before his testimony and limited him to information from the current testimony, not earlier material.
The parties clarified that slide 51 showed an arm position from Dr. Welcher's experiment, not a claim about John O'Keefe's actual arm position.
The parties disputed whether the witness should have independently corrected a prior mistake about experience, and the judge agreed the witness need not have volunteered it.
Court's actionThe judge agreed that the witness was not required to volunteer a correction and directed the questioning party to move on.
The parties disputed whether cross-examination could use titles of studies cited in Dr. Rentschler's materials to test the witness's familiarity and foundation for an opinion.
Court's actionThe judge allowed counsel to read the titles of referenced materials, but instructed counsel to move on if the witness was unfamiliar with them or knew nothing about them.
Counsel argued that a question about hard ground was vague because the witness sought clarification between grass and asphalt; the judge overruled the objection.
Court's actionThe objection was overruled.
The parties discussed a redirect question asking whether ARCCA had been hired by an insurance company, with the Commonwealth stating it would not object if framed that way.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to conclude shortly because the witness would be returning.
No sidebars match these filters.
Commonwealth v. Read — Trial Archive