Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveProcedural - Motions
23 linesCOURT OFFICER: Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. All right, so Mr. Yannetti, why don't you tell me now what it is you hope to do tomorrow, and the basis for it?
MR. YANNETTI: Right, right. So my plan, your honor — it is based on the fact that [unintelligible], when she testified, tried to minimize her relationship with the Alberts. The reason why that's relevant is that we have proof that she has changed her story after she learned that 34 Fairview was the Albert family home. She was on record with Trooper Proctor stating that — this is Katie stating — that what she heard my client say, she actually overheard: she heard my client addressing Jennifer McCabe on scene in a hysterical manner, saying allegedly "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him." And that evolved in this case to a multi-part conversation with many different people, including starting with Katie McLaughlin saying "was there any trauma?"
MR. YANNETTI: — and she and my client supposedly responded "I hit him" — and then a police officer jumps in and asks another question and my client supposedly said "I hit him," and there were like four different times where my client was responding to others, so that it wasn't really this burst of excitement — an excited utterance. She tried to cast it as statements that were made upon reflection, making them sound more ominous and more inculpatory than what they were, particularly because the person to whom my client was speaking, who was no friend of my client, reported that she said "Did I hit him? Could I hit him?" So we have a clear conflict in the testimony.
MR. YANNETTI: We have a witness who has admitted that her statement has evolved, and she's admitted that her statement evolved after she learned the identity of the house that she was at, which happens to be the house that Caitlin Albert grew up in. When Jackson asked Katie McLaughlin who Caitlin Albert was, there was a long pause, and then she was very— and even the way she phrased it was, I think, telling. "I went to school with somebody by that name," it was something to that effect. Just sounded ridiculous. It sounded like it was somebody that was trying to remember. At that point we had four photos that we marked for ID— H, J, and K— where we have them together, we have them being Facebook friends, we have a nature of the relationship that she tried to conceal.
MR. YANNETTI: Since that time we've been deluged by other photos of the two of them together, including one, you know, intimate photo of them— before them. Sorry, when I say "before them," I mean Caitlin Albert, her two college roommates, and the only person who's not a college roommate in that photo is Katie McLaughlin. Katie McLaughlin also said that she never went on anything other than occasional day trips with Caitlin Albert. We now know that that's false. We have them together in a hot tub drinking in a photo that is from Maine, which is about a four-hour drive away. When is— when is that? It was posted in 2016— but when did it— when did it occur? Did it occur in 2016 or was it posted in 2016? It was posted in 2016.
MR. YANNETTI: I think that's a new photo that was— the location was tagged in 2016, so we know it was after high school, which again contradicts Katie McLaughlin's testimony, because she made it seem like this was just some girl that I knew in high school and then we happen to be at the same places at various times, but I'm not close with— despite the fact that I have my arm around her during both of the photos. The other aspect of this, your Honor, is that she said that she had not— Katie McLaughlin testified she had not seen Caitlin Albert for, I think, two or three years prior to January of 2022. We have a baby shower photo that is from June of 2021. They are standing next to each other.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you have someone to authenticate that date?
MR. YANNETTI: Caitlin Albert will authenticate that— authenticate that date.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why— why are you sure of that?
MR. YANNETTI: Going— she's going to be shown a baby shower which occurred in 2021.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. YANNETTI: That's when it's timestamped on social media. And Caitlin Albert, her face and her body are in that photo. Katie McLaughlin's face and body are in that photo.
JUDGE CANNONE: How many other people are in that photo?
MR. YANNETTI: I think there are six. I— [unintelligible] — oh, thank you. Or actually, if I can just see those. I thought these were different photos. If I could have those— then you don't need— people there, people in the photo— but on the right side of the photo— I mean, you know, these photos impeach the testimony of Katie McLaughlin multiple times. And we should be allowed to explore the bias of these witnesses, particularly the bias of Katie McLaughlin, who purports to give incriminating testimony against my client— brand new testimony that only existed after she learned the identity of the homeowners in this case. This is classic bias and classic impeachment evidence. There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to show photographic evidence of this relationship, much like Mr.
MR. YANNETTI: Lally has shown photographic evidence of the 34 Fairview— what it looks like. It's intended to assist the jury. And doing a 403 balancing test, your Honor, the probative nature of this evidence greatly outweighs any— [unintelligible] — she's able to explain these photos any way she wants when Mr. Lally does his redirect examination of her. But without being able to get into this— [unintelligible] — Katie McLaughlin's testimony, you know, it's like she's wearing a suit of armor. We can't get through it. We have the tools and the evidence to get through it. We have the ability to expose her as somebody that's misrepresented something very important to this court. But if you can't ask these questions and we can't get any of these photos, then we're not able to do it.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Lally, what do you say?
MR. LALLY: You know, just as far as the authenticity of whatever these photos are— as far as social media is concerned, there's a variety of ways to fabricate that. And I think it's interesting that Yannetti is really vague about where these photos came from or how he knows the specifics that he's so sure about— about when they occurred, where they occurred, what state people were in, what day it was, who the college roommates are within these photographs— but has no specifics about, you know, where this deluge of photographs came from. More importantly, your Honor, what I would submit as far as Miss McLaughlin is concerned is she was entirely consistent.
MR. LALLY: And the disparagement— as far as what her testimony has been: as far as her statement within the report to Trooper Proctor, her grand jury testimony in this case, and her testimony before this jury on the stand were identical, if not entirely consistent. And again, it's not just Miss McLaughlin that is attributing this statement to the defendant. The jury has heard from two other firefighters, as well as anticipated other witnesses who will testify to these exact same statements that the defendant made outside of the home on that date. What counsel, I think, is referring to as far as "could I have hit him" is something that the defendant said to Miss McCabe, which was overheard by Miss Roberts on a speakerphone on the way to Fairview Road.
MR. LALLY: And then she modifies that statement when she's asked specifically about the bruising and how that could have been caused, and it's at that point where she repeats "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him." So to then use prior statements to a completely separate witness that have nothing to do with Miss McLaughlin to try to use that to claim impeachment or bias is ridiculous. And then as far as it applies to this specific witness, when it comes to impeachment and bias, what the case law is very clear about is if it goes to bias of the witness who is on the stand, and the witness in this case is Miss Albert, not Miss McLaughlin.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, thank you. This will save us some time tomorrow.
MR. YANNETTI: Only thing I was going to add on is his arguments go to the weight, not the admissibility. But I pulled up my notes— I'm sure the court has— she has morphed her statement into: I asked if there had been any significant trauma, she says "I hit him," then she repeated it, a woman said "You're hysterical, you need to calm down," she said "I hit him," then a police officer said "What did you say?" she repeated "I hit him." And, you know, McCabe herself testified in the grand jury that that's not what happened— that she said at that moment, "Did I hit him? Could I hit him?" She's on record saying—
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, thank you. I'll take a look at my notes and we'll figure this out. The first thing—