Day 18 - May 28, 2024

David Yannetti conducted a focused cross-examination of ATF agent Brian Higgins regarding the destruction of his cell phone. Yannetti established that Higgins received a preservation order in September 2022, never received written notice lifting it, and nonetheless destroyed the phone by removing and cutting up the SIM card, placing both in a trash bag, and disposing of them in a dumpster on a military base. Yannetti confronted Higgins with a prior statement suggesting he performed a factory reset, which Higgins denied making. The examination culminated in Higgins confirming that text messages with Brian Albert, Kevin Albert, and Nicole Albert — none of which he extracted using the federal forensics kiosk — were permanently destroyed with the phone.

ADA Adam Lally conducted redirect examination of ATF agent Brian Higgins, addressing several points raised during cross-examination. Lally established that Higgins's Jeep Wrangler had no red plastic pieces on its plow when he left Fairview Road, and that he drove the same vehicle to multiple locations that morning. On the text messages with Karen Read, Lally highlighted multi-day gaps in communication (January 20-22 and January 24-27), countering the defense's 'ghosting' narrative. Regarding the 2:22 a.m. call to Brian Albert, Higgins denied ever speaking with Albert at that time. Lally addressed the phone destruction by eliciting testimony that an investigation target had obtained Higgins's personal number through open-source internet in July 2022, creating security concerns given his undercover work, and that the phone was discarded with routine trash rather than in a targeted disposal trip. Higgins confirmed that call records were obtainable without the physical phone.

David Yannetti conducted a brief recross focusing on two points. First, he established that Higgins received a call from an investigation target in July 2022 but did not change his phone number until September 29, 2022 — the day before he was served with the court's preservation order — undermining the security justification for destroying the phone. Second, Yannetti challenged Higgins's claim that the Karen Read text exchanges were embarrassing and private by eliciting that Higgins had told his supervisor about the kiss and possibly about the texting itself. An attempt to ask about 'consciousness of guilt' regarding the unpreserved Albert texts was sustained on objection.

Dr. Justin Rice, a board-certified emergency medicine physician at Good Samaritan Hospital, testified about treating John O'Keefe on the morning of January 29, 2022. O'Keefe arrived at 6:47 a.m. in cardiac arrest with asystole, intubated and receiving CPR. His rectal temperature was 80.1°F, indicating severe hypothermia. Despite approximately 30 minutes of resuscitative efforts including epinephrine, warm IV fluids, and a Bair Hugger warming blanket, O'Keefe's core temperature did not significantly rise, and he was pronounced dead at 7:50 a.m. Rice documented a 7mm laceration on the right superior orbital ridge with surrounding swelling and superficial abrasions on the right forearm. Rice also testified that Karen Read was admitted to the same ER that morning on a Section 12 involuntary psychiatric hold, with blood work showing a blood alcohol level of 93 milligrams per deciliter.

Elizabeth Little began by pressing Dr. Rice on his involvement in Karen Read's care, establishing that he does not recall treating her, did not write the emergency room note, and cannot identify who collected, packaged, or submitted her blood work to the lab. Little then challenged Rice on whether a firefighter informed him that O'Keefe may have been struck by a vehicle — Rice initially suggested his report referenced an EMS statement about a possible vehicle strike, but after reviewing the actual document, conceded there was no mention of a vehicle whatsoever. Little concluded with a systematic body-part-by-body-part inventory confirming that Rice documented no injuries to O'Keefe's shoulders, chest, torso, back, ribs, hips, knees, shins, ankles, or feet, and reported no broken bones or fractures from the neck down.

On redirect, ADA Lally asked Dr. Rice to explain why fractures or broken bones were not documented during O'Keefe's emergency room treatment. Rice testified that the medical team's focus was entirely on core resuscitative medicine — securing the airway, maintaining CPR, and restoring cardiac function — and that injuries not pertinent to resuscitation received less attention. Lally confirmed that no x-rays or skeletal survey were performed because the immediate priorities were O'Keefe's 80-degree body temperature, absent pulse, and cardiac arrest. Lally concluded by having Rice read his clinical impression from the chart: cardiac arrest, trauma, head trauma, and exposure to environmental cold.

ADA Adam Lally calls Dr. Gary Faller, chief pathologist and laboratory medical director at Good Samaritan Medical Center, to establish the reliability of Karen Read's hospital blood alcohol test. Faller details his credentials (Tufts-trained, board certified in anatomic and clinical pathology, CAP-accredited lab) and walks the jury through the full chain of custody for blood alcohol testing — from phlebotomist protocols to centrifugation to machine analysis. He explains that the hospital tests serum/plasma (not whole blood), which yields slightly higher readings than whole blood, and that the hospital does not convert to whole-blood equivalents used in legal settings. The blood alcohol result for Karen Read was reported as 93 milligrams per deciliter, drawn approximately 10 minutes after the order and reported about 50 minutes later.

Elizabeth Little cross-examines Dr. Gary Faller on the distinctions between clinical hospital blood alcohol screening and forensic laboratory testing. She establishes that the hospital's serum test measures NADH — a byproduct of alcohol metabolism — rather than alcohol directly, and that NADH can be elevated by factors other than alcohol, including lactate, LDH, trauma, and muscle tissue damage. Faller acknowledges that hospitals do not calculate legal BAC from serum results and that the test only reflects a single point in time, not when alcohol was consumed. He pushes back on suggestions that the methodology is unreliable, citing 80% adoption across 5,000 hospitals and proficiency testing programs, but concedes the hospital is not in the business of precise BAC determination.

ADA Adam Lally conducts a brief redirect of Dr. Faller following Elizabeth Little's cross-examination, which had raised the possibility that factors other than alcohol (lactate, LDH, trauma) could elevate NADH readings. Lally asks whether any such interferences were present in Karen Read's case. Faller confirms he saw nothing indicating interference and explains that the hospital's machine automatically flags samples with high lipids, hemolysis, or high bilirubin — conditions that could compromise results. He states that in Read's case, there were no flags, meaning the reported result of 93 mg/dL was not compromised by any known interference.

Following ADA Lally's redirect, Judge Cannone offers Elizabeth Little the opportunity to recross Dr. Faller. Little asks for a moment to consider, then declines with no further questions. The proceeding concludes Faller's testimony.

Nicholas Roberts, a former Massachusetts State Police crime lab forensic scientist, explains his educational background (forensic science degree, master's in forensic toxicology from University of Glasgow) and nine years of experience in the toxicology unit. He describes performing a serum conversion on Karen Read's hospital blood alcohol results from Good Samaritan, which reported 93 milligrams per deciliter of ethanol at 9:08 a.m. Using standard conversion factors, he calculated a whole blood BAC range of 0.078 to 0.083 g percent. Roberts then performed a retrograde extrapolation using 12:45 a.m. as the last drink time, calculating that Read's BAC at that time would have been between 0.135 and 0.292 g percent. He explains the wide range results from individual variation in elimination rates and the two-hour absorption window built into the minimum calculation.

Defense attorney Elizabeth Little cross-examines toxicologist Nicholas Roberts on the limitations of his retrograde extrapolation analysis. She establishes that his calculations depend entirely on assumptions about when Karen Read had her last drink, and that if the drinking pattern differed from what was assumed, the extrapolation would be invalid. Little highlights that the underlying blood test was performed by a hospital rather than the accredited State Police crime lab, without confirmatory testing, and that the serum-to-whole-blood conversion factor varies significantly between individuals. Roberts concedes the resulting BAC range of 0.135 to 0.292 represents an approximately 120% swing, and agrees that if Read consumed alcohol after 12:45 a.m., his entire calculation would be invalid.

On redirect, ADA Lally addresses the defense's cross-examination point about the last-drink-time assumption invalidating the retrograde extrapolation. Roberts confirms that both the time of incident (12:45 a.m.) and the blood draw time (9:08 a.m.) were known values, not assumptions. Lally then draws a distinction between minor timing variations — such as a last drink at 1:00 a.m. rather than 12:45 — and major ones like 5:00 a.m. Roberts confirms that a 15-minute difference would not significantly impact his calculations, while a drink hours later would produce very different numbers.

In a brief recross consisting of a single question, defense attorney Elizabeth Little clarifies the source of the 12:45 a.m. time that Nicholas Roberts used as the basis for his retrograde extrapolation. Roberts confirms the time was not provided by Karen Read but came from a police report. Little concludes with no further questions, and Judge Cannone excuses the witness.

ADA Adam Lally called Michael Trotta, superintendent of Canton Public Works since 2003, to testify about DPW snow removal operations during the January 28-29, 2022 blizzard. Trotta explained the town's plow route system (29 routes, ~35 town trucks plus ~30 private contractors), the staged deployment schedule (sanders at 11 PM, remaining workforce at 2 AM, contractors at 3 AM), and the assignment for Route 11 covering the Cedarcrest neighborhood including Fairview Road. He identified the specific trucks assigned to that route — a medium-duty 4300 International (Truck 30, driven by Brian Loughran) and a private contractor's one-ton dump — and described driver sight-line heights for each vehicle class. Exhibit 109, the plow plan for that storm, was admitted without objection.

David Yannetti questioned Michael Trotta about his February 3, 2022 phone call with Trooper Michael Proctor, establishing that the call lasted only a few minutes, that Proctor never visited the DPW in person, never asked to interview employees, and never requested to speak with plow driver Brian Loughran. Trotta could not recall with certainty whether Loughran's full name or operations manager Bill Walsh's name came up during the call. Yannetti also attempted to explore whether a defense investigator named Paul Makowski had contacted Trotta shortly after, but Trotta denied any memory of that contact. The cross concluded with Trotta confirming the plow plan exhibit matched a defense copy.

ADA Lally examines Louis Jutras, Canton's IT manager of 25 years, about his role retrieving security camera footage from town properties after the January 29, 2022 incident. Jutras explains he was contacted first by Lieutenant Gallagher, then by Trooper Dunne, who requested footage from Pequitside Farm, Canton Town Hall, and the Canton Public Library — all facing Washington Street — for two time windows: 12–1 a.m. and 5–6 a.m. Jutras describes the camera systems as motion-activated with timestamps synced to a national time server, with approximately 30-day retention. He also testifies that DPW truck GPS systems were reported non-functional on February 1st, days after the snowstorm, noting that GPS outages occur several times a year. Two clips from the library camera are briefly shown in court.

Attorney Yannetti methodically establishes that Jutras provided raw, unedited surveillance footage to the State Police but never watched it frame-by-frame, meaning he cannot confirm whether any footage was missing within the requested time windows. Yannetti highlights that no state trooper ever asked Jutras to download and preserve the footage on a hard drive, despite the known 30-day retention limit — and that by the time the defense requested the same footage in April 2023, it had been automatically deleted. Jutras confirms he had no control over or knowledge of how the State Police handled the footage after he provided it, and cannot testify whether any video was removed after handoff. The prosecution declines redirect.