Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveProcedural - Motions
27 lines(Whereupon, the jury is escorted from the courtroom and excused for the day.)
JUDGE CANNONE: 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. So my plan, Your Honor, it is based on the fact that Katie McLaughlin, when she testified, tried to minimize her relationship with Caitlin Albert. 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 -- this is Katie McLaughlin, 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. And my client supposedly responded, I hit. 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 and 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 is no friend of my client, reported that she said, did I hit him, could I have hit him. So we have a clear conflict in the testimony. 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 she was confronted with, you know, who is Caitlin Albert, when Mr. 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 didn't tell him.
I went to school with somebody by that name, or it was something to that effect, which just sounded ridiculous. It sounded like it was somebody that she was trying to remember. You know, at that point, we had four photos that we marked for I.D., "H," "I," "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, in our view. Since that time, we've been deluged by other photos of the two of them together, including one, you know, intimate photo of them, you know, the four of them -- I'm sorry. When I say "the four of them," I mean Caitlin Albert and 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, ina photo that is from Maine, which is about a four- hour drive away.
JUDGE CANNONE: When is that?
MR. YANNETTI: It was posted in 2016, which is another reason that --
JUDGE CANNONE: When did it occur? Did it occur in 2016 --
MR. YANNETTI: I think that's the inference.
JUDGE CANNONE: -- or was it posted in 2016?
MR. YANNETTI: It was posted in 2016. I think the inference is that's when -- it was a new photo that was uploaded. If I may just have a moment. That location was tagged on 2016. So we know it was after high school, which, again, contradicts Katie McLaughlin's testimony because she made it seem that this was just some girl that I knew in high school and then we happened to be at the same places at various times. But I'm not close with her, despite the fact that I had my arm around her in most 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 date.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why? Why are you sure of that?
MR. YANNETTI: Because she is going to -- well, she is going to be shown a baby shower which occurred in 2021.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. YANNETTI: That's when it's time stamped 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 gave it back to -- oh, thank you.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
MR. YANNETTI: For the record, it's "S" --
JUDGE CANNONE: Actually, I didn't see those. I thought these were different photos. If I could have those, then you don't need to --
MR. YANNETTI: Oh, of course. There are five other people in the photo with them. But they are together 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 of 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. Lally showing photographic evidence of 34 Fairview, what it looks like. It's intended to assist the jury. And, in doing a 403 balancing test, Your Honor, the probative nature of this evidence greatly outweighs any prejudice. She is 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, Your Honor, 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 we can't ask these questions and we can't get in these photos, then we are not able to do it.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Mr. Lally, what do you say?
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, just as far as the authenticity of whatever this is, as far as social media is concerned, there's a variety of ways to fabricate that. And I think it's interesting that Mr. 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 is college roommates of who within these photographs but has no specifics about, you know, where these deluge of photographs came from. More importantly, Your Honor, what I would submit as far as Ms. McLaughlin is concerned is she was entirely consistent 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 Ms. 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 house on that date. What counsel I think is referring to as far as the "could I have hit him," is something that the defendant said to Ms. McCabe which was overheard by Ms. Roberts on a speaker phone on the way to Fairview Road. And then she modifies that statement when she's asked specifically about the bruising and how that could have been caused. And it was at that point where she repeats, I hit him. T hit him. I hit him. TI hit him. So to then use prior statements through a completely separate witness that has nothing to do with Ms. 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, the case law is very clear that it goes to bias of the witness who is on the stand. And the witness in this case is Ms. Albert, not Ms. McCabe.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. This will save us some time tomorrow.
MR. YANNETTI: Right. Well, the only thing I was going to add, Your Honor, is Mr. Lally's arguments go to the weight and not the admissibility. But I've pulled up my notes, which I'm sure the Court has. She has morphed her statement into -- I asked if there had been any Significant trauma. She said, I hit him. Then she repeated it. A woman said, you're hysterical. You need to calm down. She said, I hit him. Thena police officer said, what did you say? She repeated, I hit him. You know, Ms. McCabe, herself, testified in the grand jury that's not what happened, that she said at that moment, did I hit him, could I have. She is on record saying that.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Thank you. I'll take a look at my notes and we'll figure this out first thing in the morning.
(Whereupon, the Court adjourned at 4:11 p.m.)