Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveMaureen Hartnett - Cross/Redirect/Recross
467 linesJUDGE CANNONE: All right. Cross-examination.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Miss Hartnett, you responded to Canton Police Department. A lot of your testimony was about what happened in the sally port, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You were asked if you responded to the Canton Police Department on February 2nd, and most of your testimony was predicated on that date — going over there and doing some visual observations, as well as some removal of items and some other testing, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Was it February 2nd, or was it February 1st? May
MS. HARTNETT: I check my notes?
MR. JACKSON: I'd appreciate it if you did. My apologies — that was my error. It was February 1st.
MS. HARTNETT: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: So everything that you testified to, you only went once?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: So everything that you testified to — having taken place on February 2nd, we should assume it was actually February 1st — the one time you were there?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I was there one time.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Were you dispatched to the sally port? And I apologize — I'm not yelling at you; I'm trying to keep my voice elevated, so just so you know, not my normal speaking voice. You were dispatched at the behest of one of the Massachusetts state troopers, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: The detective bureau specifically, right?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor more specifically, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And Trooper Proctor, you knew at that time to be the lead detective — the person that was in control of the investigation?
MS. HARTNETT: May I check my notes?
MR. JACKSON: It would refresh your recollection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure, with the Court's permission. Yes.
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I was told on scene that Trooper Proctor was in charge of the investigation.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Now while you were there, one of the things that you did — one of the things that you did initially was to just do an overview of the vehicle, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Obviously that was important, given the limited information that you had at that time, about a potential motor vehicle pedestrian incident, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So you were looking for anything that would rise to a level of investigative concern regarding that vehicle, right?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Hence your review and notation of certain scratches on the vehicle — is that right?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Which may or may not have anything to do with the incident, but you noted it anyway, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: I did not draw any conclusions as to where those scratches came from.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, you just took the words right out of my mouth. My next question — the dent that you noted and photographed, you made no conclusion that that occurred as a result of a motor vehicle pedestrian incident, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: The scratches — and I'm just going to go through a couple of them — the scratches that you denoted and had photographed, you made no conclusions about that having anything to do with a motor vehicle pedestrian incident, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Even the broken tail light — at that point, you made no conclusions, or drew no scientific conclusions, about that having anything at all to do with a motor vehicle pedestrian incident, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You did, however, look for tissue — human tissue, blood, biological material, and things of that nature — on the car itself, did you not?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I did.
MR. JACKSON: In that review, I think you testified that you saw nothing that suggested the transfer of human tissue to the vehicle, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: I did not see any visible stains or tissue on the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: You were told, Miss Hartnett, that there were scratches on one of the extremities of John O'Keefe, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Were you shown a photograph of those scratches to assist you in your visual review or examination of that vehicle?
MS. HARTNETT: Not at that time, no.
MR. JACKSON: To this date, have you seen a photograph of his arm and the injuries to his arm?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I have.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, if I may — we have it. Could I display for the jurors Exhibit 19?
JUDGE CANNONE: Is this the one that's — that's covered? [unintelligible — exhibit setup]
MR. JACKSON: Miss Hartnett, do you recognize what's depicted in Exhibit 19?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: And you've seen that pattern of scratches previously, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I've seen a photo containing —
MR. JACKSON: And that's consistent with the photo that you've seen since your visit to the sally port on — sorry, on February 1st, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Was there anything — by the way, did you look all around the vehicle, 360 degrees?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I did.
MR. JACKSON: Did you look toward the top of the vehicle, as well as toward the bottom of the vehicle?
MS. HARTNETT: I did not examine the roof of the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry?
MS. HARTNETT: I did not examine the roof of the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Did you examine the undercarriage of the vehicle?
MS. HARTNETT: I did look at the undercarriage of the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: And you know what I mean when I say undercarriage?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Could you explain for the jurors what you mean when you use the word "undercarriage"?
MS. HARTNETT: The parts that normally you would have to see by, you know, bending over or laying underneath the car to view what's underneath the vehicle. That would include the frame and the axle and the drive shaft, transmission, things of that nature.
MR. JACKSON: Yes?
MS. HARTNETT: I'm not confident in all the terminology of the undercarriage, but yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see anything that was suggestive of, consistent with, the pattern of injury that you see to Mr. O'Keefe's right arm?
MS. HARTNETT: I wouldn't say I'm qualified to make any kind of pattern determination as to what would match the injuries on his arm.
MR. JACKSON: So the answer to my question is — as you sit here, you made no observation of anything on the SUV that matched these injuries, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: I would be —
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead. Go ahead and answer that.
MS. HARTNETT: I wouldn't be able to testify from memory. I don't have a photograph of the undercarriage, nor did I make any kind of conclusions about that at the time.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, understood. And you didn't take any — I'm sorry. The swabs and samples that you did take variously on the car, all came back negative for human tissue, etc.?
MS. HARTNETT: The testing that I did on scene from the various areas of the undercarriage — which I mentioned before: the tire flaps, the edge of the bumper, and the exhaust pipe — screened negative for blood.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, Mr. Jackson, can we take this down? I'm just going to suggest that —
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. On February 1st, 2022, in addition to taking some swabs from the vehicle itself, you also mentioned that you took swabs of what you believe to be blood evidence contained in six Solo cups, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I noted those as frozen red-brown stains in red cups.
MR. JACKSON: Were those Solo cups in any way labeled among themselves — in other words, Solo Cup 1, 2, 3, 4?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't believe they were, but I don't have a photograph of that, so I'm not 100% sure.
MR. JACKSON: You did not, thereafter, label those Solo cups, if they hadn't been done beforehand — you did not undertake that to label those Solo cups, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: No, I did not label them.
MR. JACKSON: How did you take those swabs? Was the swab done in one Solo cup, or did you take a swab from all six? How did you take those swabs that you ultimately did take?
MS. HARTNETT: I took those swabs from one Solo cup.
MR. JACKSON: How did you choose which of the six Solo cups you were going to take a swab from?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't recall exactly how I chose which cup. It was reported to me that those cups came from the same area of red-brown staining, so I assumed — you make an assumption that they're all related. From what I was told, it came from one area of red-brown staining at the scene.
MR. JACKSON: And you, of course, know, as a forensic criminalist, that blood stains can contain multiple contributors, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You don't know, as you sit here, which blood stain found at the scene related to which Solo cup in the bag, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MS. HARTNETT: No, it was my understanding they were all taken from the same stain.
MR. JACKSON: But you were not there.
MS. HARTNETT: From the same scene — or stain, excuse me. It was my understanding they were all taken from the same stain.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. If they in fact were taken from — multiple stains, you would have no way of knowing that as you sit here?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And ultimately, once you did take that swab from that single Solo Cup, what did you do with the rest of that blood evidence?
MS. HARTNETT: I left that with the Canton Police Department.
MR. JACKSON: Was there — by the way, I should ask this — I've been saying "swabs." Was there one swab taken of that one Solo Cup, or were there multiple swabs taken?
MS. HARTNETT: There were two swabs taken.
MR. JACKSON: Of those two swabs, did you seek to do DNA testing, or was DNA testing done on either one of those or both of them?
MS. HARTNETT: DNA testing was not done on those swabs.
MR. JACKSON: So as we sit here now, there's been no DNA confirmation of — who that blood relates to. I should say there was no testing done on it at all, and so therefore we would not know if there were multiple contributors to those stains, or that swab that you took from that single Solo Cup.
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And again, the remainder of all of that Solo Cup, as well as all the other five Solo cups, was retained by Canton police at the Canton Police Department in the control of the lead investigator Michael Proctor, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't know who was in control of it once I returned it to the Canton Police Department.
MR. JACKSON: Who did you return it to at the Canton Police Department — whom, I should say?
MS. HARTNETT: I believe I gave it to a Canton police officer. I don't know which officer that was.
MR. JACKSON: Michael Proctor was at the sallyport at the time that you were doing your examination, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did he not take control of it himself?
MS. HARTNETT: Not that I saw. I don't know who took control of them once I was done with my collection. He may have — you just don't know.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Okay. Going back to some of the damage that you did note on the vehicle — that vehicle looked like it had been driven to a certain degree, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Can you answer that?
MS. HARTNETT: I'm not — if you could clarify the question, I'm not sure what you're asking.
MR. JACKSON: Terrible question. Let me try it again. That vehicle was not a vehicle that had clearly just come off the showroom floor and had not been in use, based on your examination?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't think I am qualified to make that kind of decision. It looked like there was some normal wear and tear on the car. Other than the specific items that I pointed out earlier — the dent and the scratches — the exterior was in overall good condition, so I can't say specifically if it was driven. I don't think I can make that conclusion, unless you want to rephrase the question.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't have any reason to believe that car was in any other condition than it had been owned and driven by somebody, right? Or could you make that conclusion?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't think I can make that conclusion.
MR. JACKSON: So it could have been an absolutely brand new, right-off-the-showroom-floor car?
MS. HARTNETT: I guess I don't have any understanding of what could have happened to it in the showroom. I'm not sure I understand the line of questioning.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't we move along.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. I guess what I'm asking is — did you — you've done some damage analysis in the past. Obviously this was not your first rodeo, right?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't do damage analysis of vehicles.
MR. JACKSON: Did this car look like it had reasonably normal wear and tear on it? That's my question.
MS. HARTNETT: I don't feel comfortable answering that question.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Ultimately, the right rear tail light housing was removed, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Were you the person, Miss Hartnett, who actually used the tools to remove that tail light — be it screwdrivers, wrenches, anything else?
MS. HARTNETT: No.
MR. JACKSON: Who was it that actually did that work?
MS. HARTNETT: It was a Canton police officer that had entered the garage, and as I was removing it, he offered to help. He said he knew how to basically take it out of the housing, which at that point I was not sure how I would do that.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I'd like to show you an exhibit that you'd been shown just a few minutes ago before the lunch break — 187 — with the Court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Does that look like the same housing that you removed from the SUV, or you saw being removed from the SUV?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that is the tail light housing that I submitted to the lab from the garage.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, there was a swab taken — you mentioned on direct examination — of that tail light, somewhere on the housing, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes. I took a swab from that tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Where exactly did you take that swab from?
MS. HARTNETT: I took it from the outer exposed areas, which would have been on the outer side of the vehicle. So I did not take it from the internal — what would have been the internal portion of the tail light when it was intact.
MR. JACKSON: Can you point with a laser pointer exactly where you swabbed that tail light?
MS. HARTNETT: Sure. Is there a way that — can it get zoomed in just a little bit so I can differentiate the silver in the front? I'm having a little trouble. mr. ___: Is that zoomed in enough, or do you need more? I believe so. Let me — I can start. So I took it from the red area here that would have been exposed, and then if we could zoom in a little bit more just on this front area so I can differentiate between the internal structures and the external.
MR. JACKSON: Was it one swab?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: So you swabbed multiple areas with one swab and then submitted that?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So you don't know, as you sit here, where — if any DNA was detected — where that DNA may have come from?
MS. HARTNETT: No, that's correct. Other than the general housing all together. So — just to finish — I did — that's it, I just couldn't see it. So this area here, which would have been the external portion of the tail light — so the areas I did not swab were any areas that would have, when the tail light was intact, been protected by the outer plastic housing of the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Is your testimony, Miss Hartnett, that what you just pointed to was the exterior portion of the tail light at bottom left?
MS. HARTNETT: No — just this piece of plastic here is the exterior piece of plastic.
MR. JACKSON: And you swabbed that area as well as other areas on the exterior, like the red upper right?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. As you swab that, the DNA test does not differentiate where you swabbed, just that you swabbed, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: That was all one swab, one collection. Got it. So we can't define whether the DNA was to the upper right on the outside of the lens, or some other place that you pointed?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And of course you're familiar with touch DNA, et cetera, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Touch an item, walk away, sweaty palms — good likelihood I just left some DNA on this podium, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, you can transport skin cells by touching an item.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. We can take that down, with the Court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: You also indicated that you collected glass — pardon me, glass — from the rear bumper of Miss Read's Lexus, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I have it as apparent glass, but yes — as apparent glass.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. You labeled that as item 3-3, and it was five pieces of glass labeled A through E, right — A, B, C, D, E? Is that —
MS. HARTNETT: May I look at — may I refer to my notes, with the Court's permission? I'm just unfamiliar with the lettering A through E. I don't believe I have that in my notes.
JUDGE CANNONE: If you could refer to the document that you have.
MR. JACKSON: Is it possible that — and this is just ignorance on my part — is it possible that once you submitted that for further testing, somebody else may have labeled those individual pieces A through E, and you did not?
MS. HARTNETT: That's possible. I did not label them A through E.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, got it. Understood. Thank you for that clarification. As a matter of fact, you labeled it as quantity one, correct, on an Evidence submission form in the LIMS system?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct. Each item — that quantity value is only used for specific things, so when I submit something as one item, it doesn't matter how many pieces it actually is, it's just I'm submitting it as one item. So in other words, one group.
MR. JACKSON: That's correct. But it's — So we're clear, and I want to make sure these numbers are crystal clear — in that group under 3-3, there were five pieces of apparent glass that you recovered, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't have the exact number in my notes, and honestly it's difficult to tell from my picture, so I don't want to say that I saw five pieces of glass.
MR. JACKSON: Did you not annotate somewhere that you recovered five pieces?
MS. HARTNETT: Again, I have a photograph of it, but it's difficult to see on this printed page, so I didn't specifically write "five pieces" anywhere.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Then let me see if I can do it this way — instead of pitching, let's catch the person that you submitted it to. They would have annotated exactly what the grouping was that you submitted, to try to be accurate.
MS. HARTNETT: I'm the one that initially — oh, excuse me — after the item was submitted to fingerprinting, then I initially examined the item, but I didn't write down exactly how many pieces of glass were present. I just took a photo.
MR. JACKSON: And as you sit here, you don't recall necessarily how many pieces you took off that bumper, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: And the quality of the photo does not allow me to see that at this point.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let's take a look at that photo, with the Court's permission. This is Exhibit 168. Can we show — display that? And if we could, Mr. B-, with the Court's permission, can you zoom in on the area? Bigger than that — capture all — zooming in at this point. And I would ask you this, Miss Hartnett — do you recognize this photo? It's zoomed in a little bit. Do you still recognize it?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that a photograph that you caused to be taken at the sallyport on February 1st, 2022?
MS. HARTNETT: I believe it was February 2nd.
MR. JACKSON: Right — did we — or it's February 1st? Now — we agreed it was February 1st.
MS. HARTNETT: And my apologies. Yes, on February 1st I did request that photo be taken of the apparent pieces of glass.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And can you — I know you can't see necessarily every piece — can you use your laser pointer and point to each piece? Okay, got it. So that's the largest of the pieces, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And it's correct that none of these pieces of apparent glass were embedded in the bumper — they weren't dug in, stuck into that hard plastic, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: No, I do not have that notation that they were embedded, just that they were on the bumper.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, they were physically perched on top of that hard plastic horizontal bumper, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: To my recollection, they were just sitting on the bumper, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, and do you know — just in your experience, and if we could leave this up for just a moment while I ask the next couple of questions — your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know where Dighton, Massachusetts is?
MS. HARTNETT: I know the general area.
MR. JACKSON: How far would you say that is from Canton?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't know, maybe a half an hour. I'm not exactly sure.
MR. JACKSON: Do your notes indicate that the vehicle was recovered from Dighton and towed back to Canton and placed in the sallyport before you started your examination?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So — and you also had been apprised before you began your examination that the incident in question took place in Canton, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: So you knew, as you were looking at this vehicle and doing your examination, the vehicle had to have been driven — by definition — from Canton to Dighton, and then towed back from Dighton back to Canton, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: I was informed that the car was recovered in Dighton and ultimately either driven back or towed back — one of the ways, some way it ended up back in Canton, correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Okay. So if Dighton is — how far would you say Dighton is from Canton again?
MS. HARTNETT: I'm really guessing. I would say maybe a half an hour, three miles potentially — I don't know exactly. I was never indicated.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So according to your notes, the glass pieces that we're looking at on the back of this bumper would have traveled — let's call it, for round figures — about 60 miles in the blizzard, before you saw it.
MS. HARTNETT: I don't know when the glass pieces were — ended up on the bumper, so I couldn't say.
MR. JACKSON: And of course you knew that on February 1st — you knew a few days earlier, on the 29th, there had been a pretty significant snowstorm here in Massachusetts, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I did have that information.
MR. JACKSON: And that blizzard included high winds, freezing rain, snow — all the good stuff with a blizzard, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't recall the exact weather conditions of the blizzard, but —
MR. JACKSON: From your perspective — after all of that, whatever that was — you saw these five pieces just sitting, perched on the top of the bumper, not embedded in any way, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you recovered those with little bitty tweezers, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: We can take this down with the Court's permission. You testified on direct examination that you also found a hair on that rear panel — the quarter panel of the car — correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes. At the time of the scene I noted it was an apparent hair, correct.
MR. JACKSON: And the apparent hair — I'll try to use that same word, I keep forgetting, you'll correct me — that apparent hair was not sitting on the horizontal bumper but on a vertical portion of the quarter panel, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you find the hair, or was that hair pointed out to you by somebody else?
MS. HARTNETT: I believe I located the hair.
MR. JACKSON: How exactly was that hair secured to that vertical panel, if you can explain that?
MS. HARTNETT: It didn't appear to be secured in any way. It was just on that quarter panel.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So it wasn't taped?
MS. HARTNETT: No.
MR. JACKSON: It wasn't glued?
MS. HARTNETT: No.
MR. JACKSON: Wasn't stapled?
MS. HARTNETT: No.
MR. JACKSON: It was not affixed in any way whatsoever — it was just perched on that vertical panel of the SUV, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And — by the way — this is, you found this at the same general time that you found the glass pieces as well?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: So that hair potentially would have had to make that same 60-mile round trip in the same blizzard.
MS. HARTNETT: At the time, I don't know when that hair was deposited on the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Right. And it didn't take you much to remove that hair, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: I picked it up with a pair of tweezers.
MR. JACKSON: Didn't give you any resistance?
MS. HARTNETT: Not that I recall.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I'd like to take a look at that hair if we can. I know you've seen it just a few minutes ago — I want to look at it one more time. With the Court's permission, these are Exhibits 165 and 173. If we could start with 165 and publish those. Okay. Does that look like a closeup view — actually, pull back out. May I do this a different way? All right — this is actually, with the Court's permission, I'll approach.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: I may hand you those very briefly. Could you take a look at those four photographs and tell me if you recognize the first two to be Exhibits 165 and 173 — they're not marked on there, but what you earlier looked at?
MS. HARTNETT: Okay. Do those appear to be those two exhibits that you earlier saw?
MR. JACKSON: Yes — I don't know what numbers they were, but I do remember seeing these photos earlier.
MS. HARTNETT: Fair enough.
MR. JACKSON: And then this second two photos — do those appear to be zoomed photos of the same two photographs?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, they do.
MR. JACKSON: With the Court's permission, I would ask that the zoomed photos be marked as next in order. Is there any objection?
MR. LALLY: No.
MR. JACKSON: You're okay? Approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Thank you. May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. All right. We're looking at what's previously been marked as 165. Does that appear to be a photo of the hair? Would it be possible to just zoom in on that — just a little bit? I'm just trying to read the letter on the white marker. Yes. So that — correct. So that hair looks — as we're looking at it, you will agree that hair looks almost like a backward C, correct? In other words, it looks like it's more vertical than flat in that photograph, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: I would agree it looks like a C on the side of the car.
MR. JACKSON: If we could go to Exhibit 173. And this is the same hair photographed a second time, correct? If we could again just zoom in on that sticker. Yes. That's correct. Does it look to you like, between the first and the second photographs, that hair has moved — it's no longer an inverted C, but a C?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't know that I necessarily agree with that. I see the two ends, which may still be making contact with the vehicle. I can't make that determination based on this photo.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. So that was sort of my next question — I'll just dovetail it this way. Did it appear to you that the hair, which is curled, was making contact with the vehicle on the top point and the bottom?
MS. HARTNETT: I would say from this photo I honestly can't tell if those two ends are coming off the vehicle or touching the vehicle. I just can't make that determination.
MR. JACKSON: But you would agree that that hair was somewhat precariously perched on that vertical panel?
JUDGE CANNONE: Objection — I'll sustain the objection. Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: We can — Mr. — finish that with the Court's permission. We can take that down. If you take a look at the zoomed photos that have just been marked as 259 and 260 respectively, can you take a look at those side by side, and when you're finished I'd like to ask you a question or two about those. Okay. Does it look from your perspective, seeing those photos side by side, that the hair appears to have gently moved just a little bit between the two photos?
MS. HARTNETT: I just don't think I can make that determination. They're taken from different angles. I just don't know. I can see that they have a curl in both, but I don't know which ends are making contact or if the ends are coming off the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Thank you. There's one more exhibit I'd like to take a quick look at and ask you a couple of questions about. With the Court's permission, Exhibit 195, which is a shirt. Okay. Do you recognize what's depicted in this photograph?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: And you saw this just a few minutes ago on direct examination as well, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you took two swabs from the, quote, area around damage numbers 1 through 9 of the gray sweatshirt, end quote, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Can you describe for the jurors how you took those swabs, and were they of all nine, or a select number of the nine — how did you do that?
MS. HARTNETT: I moistened two cotton swabs with sterile water and then I took those two swabs — may I use the pointer to just show? Of course. And I vigorously swabbed around — I don't know if it's working — there we go — this entire area. So every area of damage I swabbed around all of it using the same two swabs. So it was one collection from all those areas — one collection on swab one and one collection on swab two. You just repeated the process. No, so I took them exactly at the same time. So I held the two swabs together, and as I'm swabbing I'm rotating the swabs to make sure that all the exterior of the swab is coming into contact with that material, in order to collect equal samples — or at least attempt to collect equal samples — on each swab.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. We can take that down. And you indicated that this was the first time that you had done swabbing specifically for the purpose of trying to find either canine DNA or animal DNA?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Had you been trained — at the time that you took the swabs, had you been trained, or received any training or any teaching, about the relationship between keratinized tissue and DNA?
MS. HARTNETT: No.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know what keratinized tissue is?
MS. HARTNETT: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you photograph exactly where any of those swabs were taken, or just notate it in your notes?
MS. HARTNETT: I notated in my notes — the overall photo is the photo that I used to describe the sample that I collected.
MR. JACKSON: And I think it probably goes without saying — you didn't videotape your swabbing technique on that shirt either, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You did include a handwritten — note on your report that you found quote "debris from T-shirt 717 and shirt 718," correct?
MS. HARTNETT: I performed a debris collection on each of those items. I don't know if that's what you're referring to.
MR. JACKSON: That is what I'm referring to. Okay. So there was a note in your report that you had recovered some debris or done some debris collection, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you indicated in your note that the debris was from shirt 717 and shirt 718, is that right?
MS. HARTNETT: May I refer to my notes?
MR. JACKSON: With the — thank you.
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And shirt 717 is which shirt?
MS. HARTNETT: The orange T-shirt.
MR. JACKSON: And shirt 718 is which shirt?
MS. HARTNETT: The long-sleeve gray shirt.
MR. JACKSON: All right. So you took — is "scrapings" the right word?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You took scrapings from both shirts, is that right?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then combined those together and submitted that as the quote-unquote debris that was assigned a new item number 7-118.18, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: So as you sit here, you don't know where the debris came from specifically other than the two shirts — could be one, could be the other, could have been a combination of both?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you describe in detail anywhere the actual debris that you found — little fibers, little hairs, little pieces of green or blue or whatever?
MS. HARTNETT: If I was able to pick out a hair or a fiber, I would have attempted to do that from the debris collection. The debris collection was just anything that was left on the item that I was not able to pick off.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And you did not note any debris item that was plastic or plasticine, anything like that, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: No, I did not make any kind of observations on the debris itself.
MR. JACKSON: And there was no marker put on any part of the debris that was recovered, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And there was no photograph taken of the debris?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And there was no videotape of the debris collection, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. When you received item 717 and item 718, that came in one evidence bag, did it not?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, it did.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You wouldn't mind taking a look at that — that's a photograph. I'd ask you to review and tell me if you recognize it, not the photograph, but what's depicted in the photograph.
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: How do you recognize that?
MS. HARTNETT: This is the container that contained the — it's a photo of the brown paper bag that contains the long-sleeve gray shirt as well as the orange T-shirt.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Could I ask that this be marked next in order? Any objections?
MR. LALLY: No.
JUDGE CANNONE: May I approach?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, thank you. This evidence bag notes — let me start over. This evidence bag is in the condition that it was in when you received it, meaning the writing on the back was already there when you received it?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And it notes that these items of evidence were collected by Trooper Proctor, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, correct.
MR. JACKSON: And the date of collection was January 29, 2022, is that right?
MS. HARTNETT: I'd have to relook at that.
MR. JACKSON: Of course. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So you've got your answer — the date on there is January 29th, 2022. So I don't have to walk back and forth — does that look like what you're looking at, Exhibit 261?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. You see Trooper Proctor's name on the evidence bag as the person that collected it?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And it also has a description of what's in the bag, and it shows both the orange T-shirt and the gray sweatshirt collected together and bagged together, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And the date again on the upper right is January 29, 2022, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You have no way of knowing, as you sit here, the journey that those two items of evidence took before they got to you in your lab, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: They're tracked as soon as they're entered into our laboratory system by us.
MR. JACKSON: I didn't hear any of that. My apologies.
MS. HARTNETT: The item would be tracked as soon as it's submitted to our lab by us, by the crime lab.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. We can take this down. The debris that you ultimately got from the shirt or shirts — you don't know if that debris may have been in the bag and the shirts picked up the debris in the bag or otherwise, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Correct, because they were housed together, stored together. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Were you aware before you began your analysis on either one of those shirts that those shirts had been found at the bottom of an ambulance, on the floor of an ambulance, at one point?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't have any knowledge of where the clothing — what condition the clothing was in before I got it.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, and that probably answers my next question, but just for the record, you don't have any knowledge personally, as you sit here, that either one of the shirts or both of them were on the floor of a hospital room as well?
MS. HARTNETT: I have no information about where the shirts were.
MR. JACKSON: One of the things that you did indicate in your direct examination was how important it is to maintain sanitary conditions with evidence to avoid contamination, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: For instance, you wouldn't want to take the swabs that you so carefully utilized to swab an item of evidence and then — oops — drop it on the floor. You would have to discard that item and then start over, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: If a swab is dropped on the floor, we don't discard it — we would preserve it, but that would be a note that we would have to put in our file, and yes, that swab would not be tested any further.
MR. JACKSON: Right, because of the possibility of cross-contamination, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And at least according to the evidence bag, those two shirts were in the custody and control of which Trooper before you got them?
MS. HARTNETT: Trooper Proctor collected the evidence, according to the bag.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Ultimately, Miss Hartnett, every single piece of tail light material and clothing that you've described in your testimony today on direct and cross-examination — all of that evidence was presented to you or to the lab at one time, in one bundle, on March 14th, 2022, correct?
MS. HARTNETT: No, that's incorrect.
MR. JACKSON: What else am I incorrect about?
MS. HARTNETT: So I just wanted to clarify — anything that was collected from the vehicle, as well as the swabs from the red Solo cups and the drinking glass that I was presented with at Canton PD, was submitted by me on February 1st. The other items, the clothing items, were submitted together. And then there was another submission that had the fingernails and the known blood standards. There were several submissions. So I'm hesitant to lump it all into one because it did happen on different dates.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, fair enough. Can we agree that the earliest submission — with the exception of the stuff that you actually took with you from the scene, the tail light material, whatever swabs you took — I'm sorry, the tail housing and whatever swabs you took — all of the other material that was submitted to the lab, all of the other evidence, the earliest date anything was submitted was March 14th, 2022?
MS. HARTNETT: I'm — if you don't mind, I'm just going to take a look at my submission forms just to clarify.
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear exchange]
MR. JACKSON: — witness, please go back to the witness stand please. If you could take a look at what's been marked as VV — that's the log. I just want to go through this relatively quickly. With regard to plastic pieces that were submitted, if you look on — for instance, page 11, where a tab is?
MR. JACKSON: Yes. I think — may I show you? Is that a copy of your submission form?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, it is.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. If you could familiarize yourself with that for just a quick second.
MS. HARTNETT: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Sorry. Okay. May I approach one more time? I have one more document I'm going to ask you to take a glance at. Do you recognize that document?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is that document?
MS. HARTNETT: The second document that I just received — this is a printed chain of custody report from our laboratory information management system.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to mark — the first document's name again, I want to get it right — it's the evidence submission form for submission. Evidence submission form for submission. Said document, if I may have that, and then the chain of custody. My apologies —
JUDGE CANNONE: Is there an objection, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Yes, to both.
JUDGE CANNONE: So the objection is sustained, unless you want to convince me otherwise.
MR. JACKSON: I'll have them marked for ID for the time being.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's fine. That's okay with the court.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. To clerk about exhibits You've got a lot of your post-its on the other one — do you want to take it off? I was going to actually ask —
MS. HARTNETT: Yep.
MR. JACKSON: That shows that that piece was submitted on March 14th. Correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And there was a piece submitted on March 14th, notated on page 12?
MS. HARTNETT: What item are you referring to?
MR. JACKSON: It's a plastic piece.
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, correct.
MR. JACKSON: Page 13 — another plastic piece?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Submitted on March 14th?
MS. HARTNETT: And page 14?
MR. JACKSON: Another plastic piece.
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Page 15 — another plastic piece?
MS. HARTNETT: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And page 17?
MS. HARTNETT: Sorry — yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then if you turn to the next page, page 18 — that's the orange T-shirt. It shows its submission date. Correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And what's that date?
MS. HARTNETT: March 14th.
MR. JACKSON: And then on page — the very bottom of page 20 going into page 21 — there's another item, the gray T-shirt or gray sweatshirt?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That was also submitted on March 14th?
MS. HARTNETT: Okay, thank you.
MR. JACKSON: I may approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes, thank you. So we need those — they're marked for identification. I'm not sure if I'm going to use it one more time. Put them up on the bench and you can grab them, of course.
MR. JACKSON: May — yes. Ms. Hartnett, before you received all of the items that we've talked about — and all the items that you've testified about — with the exception of the items that you physically took with you from the sallyport, everything else that you've testified to was submitted to you on March 14th or after. Correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And all submitted by Trooper Proctor? Correct?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't — I know they were all submitted by the Norfolk County detective unit. I don't know the specific officer that necessarily dropped them off at the lab.
MR. JACKSON: Can you answer the question based on the log information that you have and the chain of custody that's in front of you? Can you answer the question whether Trooper Proctor or anybody else stored the tail light lens material and the clothing in the same place, or in the same bag, before you received it?
MS. HARTNETT: I'm sorry, can you just repeat that question one more time?
MR. JACKSON: Based on the log information that you have — in other words, the chain of custody that's in front of you, that you can absolutely look at and determine where things were and who had them — can you tell us whether or not Trooper Proctor or anybody else stored any of the tail light material and the clothing in the same place, or even in the same bag?
MS. HARTNETT: No. I don't have any information as to how the evidence was treated before it was received in the lab.
MR. JACKSON: In fact, that's because there is no chain of custody for those items — there's no data for those items predating March 14th. Correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You don't personally have any chain of custody information about those items we just went over, predating March 14th. Do you?
MS. HARTNETT: I personally do not have any data that would indicate where those items of evidence were prior to them being accepted into the lab.
MR. JACKSON: And one of the reasons why you have such detailed chain of custody protocols is to maintain control over where items go and how they're handled, and by whom. Correct?
MS. HARTNETT: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Nothing further.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Anything Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Just a couple. Now, the vehicle that you observed — the defendant's vehicle — in the sallyport of the Canton police station: that was in generally overall good condition, other than the areas of damage that you noted on the right rear. Correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. LALLY: And when you were swabbing — the swabs that you took from the tail light housing that you then later submitted to DNA — that was a tail light housing that you took from the Canton police station. Correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. LALLY: You logged that into the lab?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: You took those swabs and then you packaged them and you sent them to DNA. Correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. LALLY: And all of those swabs were taken from the exterior area of that tail light assembly. Is that correct? The —
JUDGE CANNONE: Objection sustained as to the form.
MR. LALLY: With regard to those swabs that you took from the tail light housing — where on the tail light housing did you take them from?
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
JUDGE CANNONE: May I have — [unintelligible] — you are unmuted, thank you.
MS. HARTNETT: I took them from what would have been the exposed area of the tail light, should the tail light have been intact. So I did not collect from any of the interior portions of the tail light that would have been protected by the exterior plastic piece.
MR. LALLY: Now, at the time that you were looking at the vehicle in the sallyport of Canton police station, do you recall what the temperature was inside the garage?
MS. HARTNETT: No, I don't have that information.
MR. LALLY: Was the temperature the same inside the garage as it was outside of the garage, if you know? Was it heated at all?
MS. HARTNETT: I don't know if it was heated.
MR. LALLY: As far as the vehicle itself was concerned, when you saw it in the garage, did you see any sort of frozen snow or ice or anything like that on the exterior of the vehicle?
MS. HARTNETT: Not to my recollection, no.
MR. LALLY: I have nothing further on that. Limited bit —
MR. JACKSON: One follow-up question. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If you take one more look at what's been marked for identification as UU — that's the evidence submission form — correct?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Who signed that form?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: So the objection is sustained, unless you want to see me at sidebar.
MR. JACKSON: I'll ask it a different way. Is it on the bottom of the form —
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, it's the same question. Do you want to come up? Do you want to come up to sidebar?
MR. JACKSON: With that, I have no further questions.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Ms. Hartnett, you are all set. Thank you.
MS. HARTNETT: Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, your next witness?
MR. LALLY: Yes. The Commonwealth calls Ashley Vallier to the stand.