Trial 1 Trial Day
◀ Day 9 Trial 1 Day 11 ▶

Day 10 - May 13, 2024

Bulkhead Video Admitted as Albert Family Testimony Continues

9Proceedings
5Pages
3Witnesses
3,906Lines
7 sidebars
Day 10 of 35
Appearing:

The judge admitted bulkhead video as Brian Albert's cross-examination addressed prior statements and phone records; Albert family members testified about the gathering at 34 Fairview Road.

Full day summary

Before the jury entered, the judge allowed the defense to show a video of the basement bulkhead and route to the yard after describing the proposed third-party-culprit theory as speculative. During Brian Albert's cross-examination, he acknowledged that part of an earlier statement about never meeting or seeing Karen Read was false, and the defense examined his phone upgrade and calls with Brian Higgins. Brian Albert Jr. and Caitlin Albert later testified that neither John O'Keefe nor Read entered 34 Fairview Road while they were present. The judge deferred until the next morning a ruling on the defense request to use social media photographs involving Katie McLaughlin and Caitlin Albert.

Judge Allows Bulkhead Video After Relevance Objection

After requiring a defense offer of proof, the judge said the proposed third-party-culprit theory was speculative but allowed counsel to explore it, admitted the video, noted the Commonwealth's objection, and required authentication.

View moment →

Brian Albert Cross-Examination

Albert acknowledged that the portion of his earlier grand-jury sentence saying he had never met or seen Karen Read was false.

View moment →

Brian Albert Cross-Examination

After a jury-out voir dire, the parties stipulated that the Commonwealth sent Albert a preservation notice on September 23 or 24, 2022; Albert testified that he had upgraded and traded in his phone around September 22.

View moment →

Brian Albert Jr. — Direct Examination

Brian Albert Jr. testified that neither John O'Keefe nor Karen Read came inside the house while he was there that night.

View moment →

Arguments on Proposed Impeachment Photographs

The judge deferred a decision until the following morning after reviewing her notes.

View moment →
Beverly J. Cannone
“So under the third-party culprit doctrine, I do think this is speculative. But I am going to let counsel explore this. So I am going to let the video in.”
The judge allowed the proposed video while expressing concern that the defense theory was speculative.
Brian Albert
“That portion of that sentence is false.”
Albert acknowledged that part of his earlier statement about never meeting or seeing Karen Read was false.
Video thumbnail for Day 10 — Brian Albert (cross), Brian Albert Jr, Caitlin Albert 7h 24m
Watch →

1. Brian Albert — Cross

The judge allowed the defense to show a video of the basement bulkhead and route to the yard before the jury entered. Defense counsel then cross-examined Brian Albert about his prior accounts, 34 Fairview Road, and the timing of his phone trade-in.

Procedural
Judge Allows Bulkhead Video After Relevance Objection
48 lines

Before the jury entered on Day 10, the defense sought to show a short, silent video depicting access from a bulkhead to the yard. The Commonwealth objected on relevance grounds, arguing that no witness placed John O'Keefe in the house or near the bulkhead. The defense offered a proffer that Ryan Nagel and Heather Maxon would testify that O'Keefe was no longer in Karen Read's SUV as it left the area, supporting the defense theory that he had been inside the house. The judge described the proposed third-party-culprit theory as speculative but allowed counsel to explore it, admitted the video, noted the objection, and required authentication.

Cross
Brian Albert Alan Jackson
2488 lines

Defense counsel Alan Jackson cross-examined Brian Albert about his trial preparation, prior sworn accounts concerning Karen Read, the January 22 Hillside gathering, the Waterfall video, and who was at 34 Fairview Road. Albert acknowledged that part of an earlier statement saying he had never met or seen Read was false, while maintaining that the rest of his statement qualified it. The defense introduced photographs and a video showing the basement bulkhead and route to the front yard, questioned Albert about the house, its occupants, Chloe, and the early-morning response, and examined his calls with Brian Higgins. After a jury-out voir dire, the parties stipulated that the Commonwealth sent Albert a phone-preservation notice on September 23 or 24, 2022; Albert testified that he had upgraded and traded in the phone around September 22 and disputed knowingly destroying data.

5 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. Grand Jury Terminology Limits The court clarified how counsel could distinguish grand-jury proceedings during questioning without using "Commonwealth."
  2. Phone Notice Voir Dire The parties discussed objections to questions about notice concerning a phone and possible advice-of-counsel issues, prompting the judge to order voir dire.
  3. Phone Notice Fifth Amendment The court discussed dates surrounding a phone-related notice and required voir dire before questions that could raise a Fifth Amendment issue.
  4. Stipulation on Letter Sent 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.
  5. Questioning Conduct Instruction The judge told counsel to calm down while stating that counsel had been given substantial leeway in questioning.

2. Brian Albert — Redirect/Recross

Brian Albert returned for redirect and recross examination about the house, basement, phone records, and his preparation meeting with the prosecutor.

Redirect
Brian Albert Adam Lally
156 lines

On redirect, Brian Albert addressed issues raised on cross-examination concerning the Waterfall, his home at 34 Fairview Road, the basement bulkhead, cell service, and phone records. He testified that he did not enter the basement or see anyone else do so after returning from the Waterfall, described the bulkhead and its locked interior door, and said the call-log material appeared selective. The judge sustained several defense objections to questions about what Albert understood had happened outside the house and struck part of his answer about prior phone-access orders. Albert again testified that John O'Keefe never entered his house that night.

Recross
Brian Albert Alan Jackson
71 lines

Defense counsel questioned Brian Albert about preparation meetings with Adam Lally, including a discussion of cell-phone reception and Albert's changed recollection that the meeting occurred at the district attorney's office in Canton. Albert said he and Lally spoke briefly during lunch, that Lally mentioned a possible redirect question about the morning of the incident, and that Lally did not tell him how to answer. Albert also testified that he had upgraded his phone before the preservation order he described.

3. Brian Albert Jr

Brian Albert Jr. testified about the gathering at 34 Fairview Road, a dark SUV outside, and that John O'Keefe and Karen Read did not enter the house; cross-examination addressed his later police interview and uncertainty in his observations.

Direct
Brian Albert Jr Adam Lally
396 lines

Brian Albert Jr. described his birthday gathering at 34 Fairview Road, the friends and family members who came and went, and the first-floor areas where the group gathered. He testified that he saw Julie Nagel's brother's truck and an unfamiliar dark SUV outside during snowfall; on a later look, the SUV had moved closer to the flagpole, with tracks visible in the snow. The court admitted four exterior photographs of the house as Exhibits 70 through 73. He also testified that neither John O'Keefe nor Karen Read came inside the house while he was there that night.

Cross
Brian Albert Jr Elizabeth Little
256 lines

Defense counsel questioned Brian Albert Jr. about the delayed police interview, family and Snapchat communications, and his observations at 34 Fairview Road. Albert said he was unsure whether Brian Higgins was present when he looked out the window and agreed that his conclusion about Higgins leaving before his father went upstairs was an assumption. He also testified that he felt anxious and overwhelmed by the police presence on the morning of January 29 and did not recall looking outside.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Prior Testimony Impeachment Method The court directed counsel not to read prior testimony and to establish any prior inconsistent statement through questioning before impeachment.

4. Caitlin Albert — Direct/Cross

Caitlin Albert described the return to 34 Fairview Road and said she did not see John O’Keefe or Karen Read enter the home.

Direct
Caitlin Albert Adam Lally
272 lines

Caitlin Albert described meeting family members, John O'Keefe, and Karen Read at the Waterfall before returning with her parents to 34 Fairview Road. She testified that the group socialized in the kitchen and dining area, that snow was falling, and that neither O'Keefe nor Read entered the home while she was there. The judge limited several answers to Albert's own observations after defense objections.

Cross
Caitlin Albert David Yannetti
192 lines

Caitlin Albert said Trooper Proctor interviewed her in August 2023, after she testified at a May 2023 hearing. The defense questioned her relationships with Brian Higgins, Katie McLaughlin, and Courtney Proctor, then sought to use photographs to challenge her description of her relationship with Katie McLaughlin. At sidebar, the judge limited further questioning on that subject and did not permit the photographs on the showing then before the court. Albert also testified that she was not monitoring Colin Albert after greeting him and did not see him leave 34 Fairview.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Relationship Photos and Impeachment 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.

5. Procedural - Motions

Defense sought to use social media photographs to challenge Katie McLaughlin's testimony and argue bias; Judge Cannone deferred the issue until the next morning.

Procedural
Arguments on Proposed Impeachment Photographs
27 lines

Defense counsel sought to use social media photographs involving Katie McLaughlin and Caitlin Albert to challenge McLaughlin's testimony and argue bias. The Commonwealth disputed the photographs' authentication and relevance to the witness then at issue. Judge Cannone said she would review her notes and address the matter the next morning.

◀ Day 9 Trial 1 Day 11 ▶