Julie Nagel - Direct/Cross - Day 12

Three eyewitnesses place Karen Read's SUV outside 34 Fairview Road around midnight with no visible damage and no one exiting; a DNA expert finds no canine DNA on shirt swabs while conceding the tests had limitations; Allison McCabe's testimony is challenged by Life360 data.

← Day 11

Day 13 →

Direct Line 9

Cross Line 43

Procedural Procedural - Motions

1 0:28

COURT CLERK: Court is in session. 22117, the Commonwealth versus Karen Read. Counsel, could you come to sidebar, please.

2 29:06

JUDGE CANNONE: That number again that you cited, Miss McLaughlin?

3 30:00

MS. MCLAUGHLIN: Um, 3.3.4a.

4 30:13

JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.

5 30:27

COURT CLERK: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye! All persons having anything to do before the Honorable First Justice Beverly Cannone, now sitting in the Dedham Superior Court within and for the county of Norfolk, draw near and give your attendance. You shall be heard. God save the Commonwealth and this good court. Thank you. May be seated.

6 30:51

JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning. Good morning. 22117, the Commonwealth versus Karen Read. All right, good morning again, counsel.

7 30:58

MR. LALLY: Good morning.

8 30:59

JUDGE CANNONE: Miss Read, good morning. Jurors, we appreciate you being ready and willing to go forward. We did spend a little time this morning with the lawyers moving things forward, so our time was well spent. We appreciate your patience. I have to ask you those three questions. Were you all able to follow the instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone? Everyone said yes and nodded affirmatively. Did you also follow the instruction and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Everyone said yes or nodded affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case since we left yesterday? Everyone said no — all right, thank you. May we have Miss Nagel, please? Make sure — watch your step.

Direct

9 31:55

COURT CLERK: You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

10 32:37

MS. NAGEL: Yes.

11 32:40

COURT CLERK: Okay, thank you.

12 32:47

JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally.

13 32:52

MR. LALLY: Yes. Good morning.

14 32:52

MS. NAGEL: Good morning.

15 32:53

MR. LALLY: A few questions for you in regard to the interview — the conversation that you had with Trooper Proctor. Were there any other troopers present during the course of that conversation?

16 33:03

MS. NAGEL: Yes.

17 33:03

MR. LALLY: Recall who that trooper was?

18 33:05

MS. NAGEL: I can't recall his name, no.

19 33:07

MR. LALLY: Now, if I could turn your attention back to January 29th, in the early morning, when you were leaving the house on Fairview — you indicated that you saw a dark object in an area of the front lawn. Is that correct?

20 33:20

MS. NAGEL: Yes.

21 33:20

MR. LALLY: You had been to the house at 34 Fairview on several different occasions prior to this day, correct?

22 33:26

MS. NAGEL: Yes.

23 33:26

MR. LALLY: Ever been over in that area — that front lawn — was that an area that was used, that you observed by the homeowners or anyone there?

24 33:34

MS. NAGEL: Um, not really, no.

25 33:36

MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, do you recall about the lighting in that particular area of the yard?

26 33:41

MS. NAGEL: Um, I mean, it was dark out, but with the snow it was kind of — you could see a little bit of a glare.

27 33:49

MR. LALLY: Recall any sort of street lights or anything like that in that area?

28 33:53

MS. NAGEL: Um, I can't recall, no.

29 33:55

MR. LALLY: Now, you saw this object which you described as approximately 5 to 6 feet long. Is that right?

30 34:01

MS. NAGEL: Yes. Correct.

31 34:02

MR. LALLY: And in the area of the flag pole. Is that correct?

32 34:06

MS. NAGEL: Yes.

33 34:07

MR. LALLY: And at the time that you saw it, were you expecting or anticipating something over in that area of the yard?

34 34:15

MS. NAGEL: No.

35 34:15

MR. LALLY: And when you were driving past it, is that the first time that you saw it?

36 34:21

MS. NAGEL: Yes.

37 34:21

MR. LALLY: Now, if you had realized or had recognized that dark object — 5 to 6 feet long, in that area near the flag pole — had you realized that was a body, what would you have done?

38 34:35

JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.

39 34:36

MS. NAGEL: I would have, you know, called 911, and told everybody else in the car as well.

40 34:43

MR. LALLY: And your testimony again was that you put sort of two and two together the following day, correct?

41 34:55

MS. NAGEL: Yes.

42 34:56

MR. LALLY: I have nothing further.

Cross

43 34:59

MR. JACKSON: So if you realized it was a body, you would have called 911, correct?

44 35:09

MS. NAGEL: Yes.

45 35:09

MR. JACKSON: And that's because you would have realized that was very important information, correct?

46 35:19

JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.

47 35:21

MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? If you realized it was a body, you would have realized that was very important information, correct?

48 35:38

MS. NAGEL: Yes.

49 35:39

MR. JACKSON: And your testimony today is that you realized it was a body the very next day, correct?

50 35:50

MS. NAGEL: The next day, after I had a conversation, yes.

51 35:56

MR. JACKSON: You didn't call 911 at that point, correct?

52 36:01

MS. NAGEL: I did not.

53 36:03

MR. JACKSON: Did you call the police business line?

54 36:08

MS. NAGEL: I did not.

55 36:10

MR. JACKSON: Did you speak to any police?

56 36:14

MS. NAGEL: No.

57 36:15

MR. JACKSON: Right. And you would agree with me, Miss Nagel, that object became 5 to 6 feet long yesterday for the first time?

58 36:30

JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, ask the question differently.

59 36:35

MR. JACKSON: Miss Nagel, the first time you've mentioned to anybody that that object was 5 to 6 feet long was yesterday — to this jury — two and a half years after you supposedly saw it. Correct?

60 37:17

MS. NAGEL: Yes.

61 37:18

MR. JACKSON: Nothing further.

62 37:20

JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Miss Nagel, you are all set. Thank you very much.

63 37:34

MS. NAGEL: Thank you.

64 37:36

JUDGE CANNONE: Next witness, please.

65 37:40

MR. LALLY: Yes — call Miss Kun to the stand. While she's coming in, can I see counsel just about this witness for a second, please.

66 38:08

JUDGE CANNONE: Next witness — I just want to tell you that sometimes we call witnesses out of order. Sometimes witnesses have to be called in a certain time frame because of their schedules or some other instance, and the lawyers were kind enough to work this out among themselves, so we appreciate it. All right.

Summary

Julie Nagel returns for redirect and recross examination regarding a dark object on the front lawn at 34 Fairview Road the night of January 29, 2022. During redirect, Adam Lally establishes visibility conditions and location context, then gets Nagel to affirm she would have called 911 if she'd known the object was a body. Alan Jackson's recross exposes the contradiction: Nagel never contacted police after connecting the object to John O'Keefe the following day, and her estimate of the object's length—five to six feet—appears for the first time to the jury, two and a half years after the event.

Direct Julie Nagel (Adam Lally)

Adam Lally conducts a brief redirect examination of Julie Nagel, following up on her prior testimony about seeing a dark object on the front lawn at 34 Fairview Road in the early morning of January 29, 2022. Lally establishes that the front lawn area near the flagpole was not typically used by the homeowners, that visibility was limited but aided by snow glare, and that Nagel was not expecting to see anything in that area. Lally asks the key hypothetical: had Nagel realized the object was a body, she says she would have called 911 and alerted everyone in the car. Nagel confirms she connected the object to John O'Keefe the following day.

Legal Significance

Lally rehabilitates Nagel's credibility after cross-examination challenged her failure to act upon seeing the object. By eliciting that she would have called 911 had she recognized it as a body, the prosecution frames her inaction as reasonable given the circumstances rather than suspicious.

Examination Style

Adam Lally: Brief, targeted redirect designed to rehabilitate the witness after cross-examination. Lally walks Nagel through the conditions that explain why she did not recognize the object, then asks the hypothetical that reframes her inaction as reasonable.

Key Quotes

"Um, I mean, it was dark out, but with the snow it was kind of — you could see a little bit of a glare."
— Julie Nagel Establishes that while it was dark, snow provided some visibility — enough to see a shape but not enough to identify it as a person.

"Now, if you had realized or had recognized that dark object — 5 to 6 feet long, in that area near the flag pole — had you realized that was a body, what would you have done?"
— Adam Lally The central question of this redirect — designed to counter the defense's implication that Nagel's inaction was suspicious.

"I would have, you know, called 911, and told everybody else in the car as well."
— Julie Nagel Directly addresses the defense's cross-examination point about her failure to stop or call for help.

Topics

Trooper Proctor interview — presence of second trooperfront lawn usage at 34 Fairview Roadlighting and visibility conditions on January 29 morningsnow glare aiding visibilitydark object near flagpole — 5 to 6 feet longhypothetical response had object been recognized as a bodyconnecting observation to John O'Keefe the following day

Cross Julie Nagel (Alan Jackson)

Alan Jackson conducts a focused recross-examination of Julie Nagel lasting under three minutes. He establishes that despite testifying she would have called 911 had she known the object was a body, Nagel never contacted police — not 911, not the business line, not any officer — after she connected the object to John O'Keefe the following day. Jackson then drives home the point that Nagel's estimate of the object as 5 to 6 feet long was offered for the first time to the jury, two and a half years after the night in question. Judge Cannone sustains an initial objection but allows Jackson to rephrase, and Nagel concedes both points. The witness is then excused.

Legal Significance

Jackson reinforces the defense theory that Nagel's inaction after connecting the object to O'Keefe undermines either her credibility or the plausibility of her account, while the late-emerging size estimate suggests testimony shaped by litigation rather than genuine recollection.

Examination Style

Alan Jackson: Tight, sequential recross using only leading questions to lock in two damaging concessions — inaction after realization and a late-emerging size estimate — then immediately sits down.

Key Quotes

"And your testimony today is that you realized it was a body the very next day, correct?"
— Alan Jackson Sets up the contradiction between recognizing the significance of the object and taking no action.

"The next day, after I had a conversation, yes."
— Julie Nagel Concedes she connected the object to O'Keefe the next day but still did not contact authorities.

"Miss Nagel, the first time you've mentioned to anybody that that object was 5 to 6 feet long was yesterday — to this jury — two and a half years after you supposedly saw it. Correct?"
— Alan Jackson Highlights that the specific size estimate — critical because it matches a human body — was never mentioned in any prior statement.

"Yes."
— Julie Nagel Unqualified concession to the late-emerging size detail.

Credibility Challenges

Julie Nagel — Jackson establishes that Nagel's 5-to-6-foot size estimate for the object on the lawn appeared for the first time at trial, two and a half years after the event, and was never mentioned in any prior statement.
Julie Nagel — Jackson highlights the contradiction between Nagel's stated willingness to call 911 if she realized the object was a body and her complete failure to contact any police after she connected the object to O'Keefe the following day.

Topics

Nagel's failure to contact police after connecting the object to O'KeefeFirst-time disclosure of 5-to-6-foot size estimate at trialTiming of Nagel's realization that the object may have been a body

← Day 11 Julie Nagel - Cross (Part 1) 1 of 8 Teri Kun - Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross →