Day 18 - May 28, 2024

David Yannetti questioned Brian Higgins about the preservation and disposal of his phone. Higgins acknowledged receiving a preservation order that was never lifted in writing, later disposing of the phone and a destroyed SIM card, and not preserving text messages with Kevin Albert, Nicole Albert, and Brian Albert. He denied telling investigators that he factory-reset the phone.

Brian Higgins testified about his route from Fairview Road, communications with Ms. Read, and the reasons he kept their messages private. He denied speaking with Brian Albert around 2:22 a.m. on January 29, described Canton Police Department keycard access, and explained that he later discarded his broken phone and SIM card with other trash after learning a request for the physical phone had been denied. Higgins also denied seeing anything by the roadside as he left Fairview Road and said he would have acted if he had seen John O'Keefe.

Defense counsel recross-examined Brian Higgins about his explanation for changing his phone number and obtaining a new phone. Higgins said the phone number was his primary concern, acknowledged changing it on September 29, 2022, and confirmed that he received the preservation order the following day. He also acknowledged preserving his exchanges with Karen Read before disposing of his phone and did not deny possibly telling his supervisor about the texting. The court sustained an objection to a question about “consciousness of guilt.” Keycard logs were entered as Exhibit No. 105 by agreement.

The court recessed the jury before a juvenile witness, stated that a media order prohibited transmission of that testimony, and confirmed the parties' agreement on the child's courtroom seating. Afterward, the court struck a comment and instructed jurors that counsel would speak to them during closing argument before moving to another juvenile witness.

Emergency physician Dr. Rice described John O'Keefe's arrival at Good Samaritan Hospital unresponsive, intubated, and receiving CPR. He testified from the medical chart about O'Keefe's cardiac arrest, low recorded temperature, treatment, physical findings, and a 7:50 a.m. death declaration. Following a sidebar, O'Keefe's redacted records were marked only for identification. The court admitted Karen Read's redacted hospital records as Exhibit No. 106, and Rice read an alcohol-screen result of 93 milligrams per deciliter from those records.

Defense counsel questioned Dr. Rice about his lack of recollection of Ms. Read's care and the collection, packaging, and lab submission of her blood. After reviewing Mr. O'Keefe's report, Rice agreed it contained no suggested EMS statement that he may have been struck by a vehicle and no mention of a vehicle. Rice also confirmed that his report did not document injuries to several areas below O'Keefe's neck or a fracture.

Dr. Rice explained that the emergency team focused on airway management, CPR, and other resuscitative measures for Mr. O'Keefe, rather than conducting a full skeletal survey or documenting injuries not pertinent to resuscitation. He read his charted clinical impression: cardiac arrest, head trauma, and exposure to environmental cold. After his testimony ended, the court directed counsel to confer on proposed redactions and provide competing versions by 1:15 if needed.

Pathologist Garrey Faller described Good Samaritan Medical Center's laboratory accreditation and alcohol-testing procedures, including its policy to use a nonalcohol swab for an alcohol blood draw. He testified that Karen Read's chart reported an alcohol result of 93 milligrams per deciliter, explained that the hospital tests plasma, and said the hospital does not make an official conversion to a whole-blood level.

Defense counsel questioned pathologist Gary Faller about hospital serum alcohol testing, including the NADH-based methodology, potential interferences, and the distinction between clinical testing and forensic whole-blood analysis. Faller said the hospital does not convert serum results to whole-blood alcohol levels and agreed that a serum result does not establish when alcohol was consumed.

On redirect, pathologist Gary Faller testified that certain laboratory conditions can trigger a flag, disclaimer, or withholding of a result. He said Ms. Read's chart showed none of those flags. The judge sustained one defense objection to the form of the prosecutor's question.

Defense counsel asked no further questions, and Dr. Gary Faller was excused. The Commonwealth then called Nicholas Roberts as its next witness.

Forensic toxicologist Nicholas Roberts described his qualifications and State Police Crime Lab procedures before explaining his serum-conversion and retrograde-extrapolation analyses for Karen Read. He testified that a 93-milligrams-per-deciliter serum result from a 9:08 a.m. specimen converted to 0.078 to 0.083 gram percent, and that his retrograde calculation using 12:45 a.m. as the last-drink time produced a range of 0.125 to 0.292 gram percent. The court directed the prosecutor to ask another question after one objection and later overruled an objection to the revised questioning.

Defense counsel questioned forensic toxicologist Nicholas Roberts about the assumptions used in his retrograde-extrapolation analysis, including the timing of the blood draw, incident, and last drink. Roberts agreed that his analysis assumed the accuracy of a single hospital test, that individual serum-to-blood conversions are difficult to predict precisely, and that an invalid clinical result or drinking after the assumed time could invalidate the calculation. He said the broad range resulted from the factors involved in the calculation.

On redirect, forensic toxicologist Nicholas Roberts clarified that the known incident and blood-draw times were inputs to his retrograde blood-alcohol analysis. He said a later drink could change the calculation's time frame; he testified that an assumed last drink at 5:00 a.m. would significantly affect the calculation, while one at 1:00 a.m. would not.

On recross, Nicholas Roberts confirmed that the 12:45 time used in his analysis was supplied by a police report, not by Karen Read. He was then excused.

Michael Trotta, Canton’s superintendent of public works, described the town’s snowstorm staffing and plowing procedures. He authenticated the January 28-29, 2022 plow plan admitted as Exhibit No. 109, identified Fairview Road as part of lower Cedarcrest Route 11, and described the vehicles assigned to that route.

Defense counsel questioned Canton Department of Public Works superintendent Michael Trotta about his brief call with Michael Proctor after the snowstorm. Trotta repeatedly qualified his memory of whether he identified Brian Loughran or Bill Walsh during that call, but said Proctor did not ask him to speak with Loughran. Trotta confirmed that Loughran drove the truck that plowed Fairview Road on January 29, 2022. The court sustained objections to questions about a defense investigator and a truck nickname, and Trotta said two plow-list documents appeared identical.

Louis Jutras, Canton’s information-systems manager, described the town’s security-camera systems, their motion-activated recording and retention practices, and his retrieval of requested footage from Pequitside Farm, the library, and town hall. He said he exported the requested Washington Street camera footage for the specified overnight and morning periods and sent it to Trooper Dunne. He also testified that DPW-truck GPS information was reported unavailable during the January snowstorm. The parties agreed to admit the library footage as Exhibit No. 110, and portions were shown to the jury.

Defense counsel questioned Canton IT manager Louis Jutras about the requested library video footage. Jutras said he verified the beginning and ending times but did not watch every second, supplied the footage as motion-activated raw footage, and was not asked by a state trooper to preserve it beyond its less-than-30-day retention period. He later said he could not recreate another copy and had no knowledge of how police preserved the footage after receiving it. The judge allowed one question on that limit of knowledge and sustained an objection to a later question about whether video was removed after Jutras provided it.

The court discussed the prosecution's anticipated next witnesses, including a proposal to call Ashley Vaillier out of order on Monday because of availability. The court directed defense counsel to provide information concerning a newly disclosed forensic pathologist and noted that any motion to exclude that witness would have to be addressed. The court also resolved exhibit-handling issues by directing further redactions and marking the unredacted Exhibit No. 48 for identification.