Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveChristina Hanley - Direct/Cross/Redirect
313 linesJUDGE CANNONE: So I'll see counsel for a second at sidebar, please.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Lally, your next witness, please.
MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor. The Commonwealth calls Miss Christina Hanley to the stand.
COURT OFFICER: Step right up there. Just watch your step for me.
COURT CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
MS. HANLEY: I do. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: The microphone is on the lowest setting. I really need you to keep your voice up, okay? All right, whenever you're ready, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, ma'am.
MS. HANLEY: Good morning.
MR. LALLY: Could you please state your name and spell your last for the jury?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. It's Christina Hanley. Hanley is spelled H-A-N-L-E-Y.
MR. LALLY: And what do you do for work now?
MS. HANLEY: I am a forensic scientist at the Massachusetts State Police crime laboratory.
MR. LALLY: And how long have you been at the Massachusetts State Police crime laboratory?
MS. HANLEY: I have been there for approximately 16 years.
MR. LALLY: Now, ma'am, if I could ask you just a little bit about your educational background, starting with where did you go and what degree did you receive with regard to your undergraduate?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. I have a Bachelor of Science in chemistry with a concentration in forensics from [unintelligible] College.
MR. LALLY: And then after receiving those degrees from [unintelligible], where did you go from there?
MS. HANLEY: I began working at the Massachusetts State Police crime lab in 2008.
MR. LALLY: And from your working there in 2008, what did you do next?
MS. HANLEY: So I began as a chemist 1 in the drug identification unit. Once I completed my training there, I was promoted to a chemist 2. In 2009, I transferred into the trace unit as a chemist 2, which is the equivalent of a forensic scientist 2 currently. And in 2017, I was promoted to a forensic scientist 3 in the trace, arson, and explosives unit.
MR. LALLY: And if you could describe for the jury sort of the difference between a forensic scientist or chemist 1, forensic scientist 2, forensic scientist 3, within your lab?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So a forensic scientist 2 is considered like a bench analyst working on casework.
JUDGE CANNONE: Miss Hanley, I'm going to ask you to keep your voice up — really loud, okay?
MS. HANLEY: A forensic scientist 3 is a unit supervisor, and I also perform casework.
MR. LALLY: And how long have you been a forensic scientist 3, or a supervisor, within the trace unit?
MS. HANLEY: I have been a supervisor since 2017, for approximately seven years.
JUDGE CANNONE: Keep your voice up, please.
MR. LALLY: Now, Miss Hanley, with reference to — starting in general terms with the trace unit — if you could describe to the jury what is the trace unit and what type of analyses are done within that unit?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So the type of examination that we do in the trace, arson, and explosives unit — I examine and compare trace evidence such as paint, fibers, hair, glass, tape, miscellaneous items, and I also do physical match examinations as well as serial number restorations on firearms.
MR. LALLY: What type of training did you receive at the lab?
MS. HANLEY: So I received in-house training as well as some external training. The in-house training consisted of required readings, exercises, observing other analysts working on casework in the lab. I was required to successfully complete a written exam, a competency test, and a mock trial.
MR. LALLY: And if you could describe to the jury sort of what your duties and responsibilities are with your current position at the lab?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So I'm responsible for the daily operations in the unit, training other new analysts in the unit. I perform technical and administrative reviews of case files. I also work on casework, like I had mentioned, examining trace evidence such as paint, fibers, hairs, glass, tape, miscellaneous items, and physical match examinations and serial number restorations on firearms.
MR. LALLY: And was your lab — the Massachusetts State Police crime lab — is that accredited somehow?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, it is.
MR. LALLY: And can you describe to the jury what that accreditation means?
MS. HANLEY: Essentially, sure. So accreditation — it's a formal recognition that the lab is in compliance with certain accreditation requirements.
MR. LALLY: And is the lab that you work for — is that currently up to speed with regard to accreditation?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as — you mentioned that you work as a supervisor and review other people's casework — is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, that's correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, when it comes to this specific area, as far as trace analysis or comparison of items, if anyone reviews your work —
MS. HANLEY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the end of that.
MR. LALLY: When it comes to this type of analysis, as far as comparison of items, who is it that reviews your work?
MS. HANLEY: So depending on the type of case, currently we do have an external technical reviewer who is authorized to perform that technical review.
MR. LALLY: And is that external review — is that essentially a result of there's no one else at the lab that can do what you do?
MS. HANLEY: With some of the disciplines that I perform casework in, I am the only one. So when I do those types of cases, we utilize an external technical reviewer.
MR. LALLY: Now, are you familiar with the proficiency test?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Can you explain to the jury what that is and how that plays into either your work at the lab or the accreditation process that the lab goes through?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So a proficiency test monitors an analyst's performance. It's a quality assurance process, and I am required to complete at least one external PT annually. Due to the multiple subdisciplines in trace, I do typically perform or complete more than one proficiency test per year.
MR. LALLY: And are the proficiency tests that you take — are they required by the accrediting body, ANAB?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And have you passed each of those proficiency tests that you've undertaken over the years?
MS. HANLEY: I have successfully completed my proficiency tests.
MR. LALLY: Now, turning your attention to this case — at some point, did you become involved in an analysis in reference to a lab case number 22-02184?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And the name of the suspect on that is Karen Read — is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And if you could describe to the jury again, just in a general sense, in any sort of case when items come into your possession at the lab — how is that done, and sort of what do you do with those items when you first receive them?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So evidence is submitted to the lab through the evidence unit. It's assigned a unique lab number and barcode. The information for the case is input into our LIMS system, which stands for laboratory information management system. And the chain of custody of the items is tracked in that LIMS system. When I take an item into my custody, I then document it with photos and notes, and then I proceed with sampling and microscopic examination and instrumental analysis.
MR. LALLY: Now, specifically, when it comes to — you mentioned you have a variety of sort of subdisciplines or different types of testing or casework that you do — is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Specifically as it applies to an analysis or an examination of items of glass — what, if any, experience, or what types of cases would it be that you've looked at those types of items in the past?
MS. HANLEY: So I have examined glass numerous times, from a variety of different types of cases. For example, a hit-and-run or a B&E.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the types — are there different types of glass that you've performed examinations on in the past as well?
MS. HANLEY: Yes. I mean, there could be a variety of types of glass that I could come across for examination.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to examination of glass, what are some of the steps, or what is the process, or what if any instrumentation are you using to conduct your examination?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So when I examine an item that is glass, I document it with photos and notes making general observations of appearance, color. I examine a portion microscopically and observe certain optical properties, and then I will also check to see if it fluoresces under UV light. And I also will sample it for analytical analysis using a GRIM, which stands for glass refractive index measurement.
MR. LALLY: If you could explain to the jury the GRIM device — how does that work?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So it measures the refractive index. Your sample is placed into an oil of a known refractive index, and that then gets placed onto a hot stage of the microscope of the GRIM instrument. And it goes through a process of cooling and heating, and it looks for the match point temperature. And from that match point temperature, we're able to determine the refractive index of the glass sample.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as that determination of the refractive index of a glass sample — how — is that something that you're viewing, and how are you viewing it? What are you viewing?
MS. HANLEY: It's viewed through the software that the GRIM instrument uses.
MR. LALLY: And how does that appear, as far as visually, when you're looking at it?
MS. HANLEY: So it essentially — you watch the cooling and heating process of this sample, like I had mentioned. And it determines the match point temperatures and takes an average, and it then calculates the refractive index for the sample.
MR. LALLY: Now, is there another device that you utilize in the lab called an FTIR?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain — first of all, what does that term stand for?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. It stands for Fourier transform infrared spectrometer. Sorry.
MR. LALLY: And what is that device, and how is that used in your examination?
MS. HANLEY: So it's an analytical technique that's used for certain types of analysis. Basically, your sample is exposed to infrared light and it reacts in a certain way, and what's produced is what we call a spectrum or a graph, and it's just a series of peaks and valleys that are representative of the sample.
MR. LALLY: Now turning your attention back to this case, um, 22-02184 — starting with, were there some glass pieces that you examined in reference to that case?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what were the item numbers associated with the glass pieces that you examined in this case?
MS. HANLEY: Sure, so the item numbers — it was item 3-2, 3-3, 7-12, and 7-14.
MR. LALLY: And if you recall, as far as starting with item 3-2, was there any other sort of label associated with that beyond just item 3-2?
MS. HANLEY: Uh, 3-2 was a clear apparent drinking glass. And item 3-3 — item 3-3, I believe, was the clear apparent glass pieces recovered from the bumper of the vehicle. And then item 7-12 — that was some clear apparent glass that was recovered from the ground at 34 Fairview Road.
MR. LALLY: Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And lastly, item 7-14?
MS. HANLEY: 7-14 was also a clear apparent piece of glass that was recovered from the road.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to item 3-2, the drinking glass, what if any observations did you make or did you note during the course of your examination of that?
MS. HANLEY: Sure, so it appeared to have broken irregular edges, and that was all I had noted at that point.
MR. LALLY: Did you take measurements as far as height and width?
MS. HANLEY: I did.
MR. LALLY: Do you recall what those were?
MS. HANLEY: I would need to refer to my notes for that.
MR. LALLY: Yes, you can use your notes.
MS. HANLEY: So the diameter of the bottom of the drinking glass was approximately 2 and 3/4 inches, and it measured approximately 2 and 1/2 inches in height.
MR. LALLY: In addition to the measurements that you took, what if anything else did you note as far as the interior and the exterior of that glass?
MS. HANLEY: That there was some dirt debris material noted on the exterior and interior of that item.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as item 3-3, the apparent glass on the rear bumper of the vehicle, what if any observations or measurements did you take in reference to that, or how many pieces were there?
MS. HANLEY: Sure, so it consisted of five clear pieces of apparent glass, all with broken irregular edges. The largest piece measured approximately 7/8 of an inch by 5/16 of an inch, and the smallest piece measured approximately 3/16 of an inch by 1/8 of an inch.
MR. LALLY: Now within those five pieces in item 3-3, were they then given — each of those pieces respectively — an additional label or marker?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And was that an alphabetical one, essentially A through E?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I labeled them A through E.
MR. LALLY: Now with regard to piece E from item 3-3, what if anything in addition did you do with regard to that piece?
MS. HANLEY: So what I labeled as piece E, I also used the GRIM instrument for analytical instrumentation.
MR. LALLY: Now with regard to item 7-12, the 14 pieces of glass and clear plastic, what if anything did you observe in your initial observations or initial examination of those pieces individually?
MS. HANLEY: So in item 7-12, it consisted of five pieces of clear apparent plastic and nine pieces of clear apparent glass, all with broken irregular edges.
MR. LALLY: Now specific to the nine pieces of broken glass, what if any examination did you do of [unintelligible]?
MS. HANLEY: So the nine pieces of apparent glass were examined microscopically.
MR. LALLY: Now lastly with regard to item 7-14, the pieces of glass recovered from 34 Fairview Road, what did you note during your initial examination and what observations did you make in regard to that?
MS. HANLEY: Sure, so item 7-14 consisted of one clear piece of apparent glass with broken irregular edges.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as the microscopic appearance — so when you're putting something under the microscope and you're looking at — what kind of things are you looking for, what kind of characteristics are you looking for when you're examining something microscopically?
MS. HANLEY: So I look at several things. Initially I look at the color, whether there are flat smooth surfaces to the glass, whether it's flat or has curvature, and then I may sample some more to examine under a polarized light microscope and check to see if there are certain optical properties under a polarized light microscope that are characteristic of glass.
MR. LALLY: And in addition to looking at each of these items individually, then what if any comparison did you do between those various items — 3-2, 3-3, 7-12, and 7-14?
MS. HANLEY: So between those items, I first examined them to see if there was a physical match between item 3-2 and items 7-12 and 7-14, and then I also did a comparison of 3-2 to item 3-3, and also compared item 3-3 to 7-14 for possible physical match. And in addition, I also sampled some pieces for examination on the GRIM instrument.
MR. LALLY: Let me ask you, just as far as classification — are you familiar with the terms as far as a class characteristic versus an individual characteristic?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Can you explain what those terms mean and how they relate to each other within your specific field?
MS. HANLEY: Sure, so a class characteristic is when a material can be associated with a group of items that share characteristics — like, for example, fibers or tape. An individual characteristic is when a material can be associated with a single source — for example, a physical match.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to your analysis between items 3-2 and 7-12, what if any conclusions were you able to draw from your examination or comparison of those items?
MS. HANLEY: Sure, so there are several items that I'll just have to refer to my conclusion — if that's okay — on my report.
MR. LALLY: Yes, you can go ahead and look at your notes.
MS. HANLEY: So item 3-2 was found to have a physical match with six of the pieces of clear apparent glass from 7-12, but there was no physical match with the three other pieces from 7-12.
MR. LALLY: Based on that physical match that you determined, what if any conclusions can you come to with regard to those items that were a physical match?
MS. HANLEY: Sure, so item 3-2 and the six pieces from 7-12 were at one time together as one unit. And so item 3-2 and all nine pieces from item 7-12 were examined microscopically; however, there was no physical match found with the piece of clear glass from 7-14. Item 3-2 and all nine pieces of clear apparent glass from 7-12 were examined microscopically, but no physical match was found with two of the pieces from the clear apparent glass from item 3-3.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to item 3-3 and item 7-14, what if any comparison examination were you able to do in reference to that?
MS. HANLEY: Sure, so two of the clear glass pieces from 3-3 were examined microscopically. No physical match was found with the piece of clear glass from item 7-14. One of the pieces that I had labeled as piece E from item 3-3 was found to be consistent in physical and instrumental properties with examined portions of the piece of clear glass from item 7-14. So accordingly, the examined portion of the piece of clear glass that I labeled as E from item 3-3 could have originated from the examined portion of the piece of clear glass from item 7-14, or from another source with the same characteristics.
MR. LALLY: We use the term "instrumental properties" in there — can you explain to the jury what that term means and how it relates to your examination in this case?
MS. HANLEY: So the instrumental properties — that's referring to the GRIM analysis that I did, so in comparing the refractive index from 3-3 versus 7-14.
MR. LALLY: So the clear apparent glass from item 3-2 that was recovered from the scene was a physical match for six pieces from 7-12, which were additional glass pieces found from the scene, correct?
MS. HANLEY: I'm sorry, say that again?
MR. LALLY: Sure, so the drinking glass from item 3-2 was a physical match for six of the pieces from item 7-12, which was glass recovered from the scene, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And then one of the pieces — excuse me — piece E from 3-3, which was from the bumper of the defendant's vehicle, was consistent with the piece of clear glass from 7-14, which was found on the ground, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now Miss Hanley, in addition to that trace analysis that you performed with regard to the glass pieces, what if any additional examination did you do with regard to items of debris?
MS. HANLEY: Sure, so I also examined item 3-1 and 7-18.18.
MR. LALLY: Now starting with item 7-18.18, what if any other description did you have as far as what that item was or where it came from?
MS. HANLEY: So 7-18.18 were scrapings — trace material recovered from the victim's clothing, and that would be both an orange T-shirt and a gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And those particular items, as far as the debris that was provided to your unit within the lab — by whom?
MS. HANLEY: I believe it was Maureen that did the scraping of the clothing and transferred to our unit for further examination.
MR. LALLY: And that would be Maureen Hartnett, is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And then as far as the other item — 3-1 — is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. LALLY: That was the actual sort of tail light housing from the vehicle, is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, that's correct.
MR. LALLY: And according to your notes, who if anyone provided that piece of evidence to your unit or to your lab for that comparison purpose?
MS. HANLEY: I would have to double check — I believe it was Maureen, but I'm not — I would have to double-check in my —
MR. LALLY: Go ahead. You can go ahead.
MS. HANLEY: Okay. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. It was Trooper Christopher Moore that had that item delivered to the lab.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to item 3-1, the passenger side tail light from the vehicle, what if any observations or things did you note in regard to your initial examination of the tail light?
MS. HANLEY: So I did notice that there were portions of the tail light — portions that were clear and red — that had broken, irregular edges. It appeared to be that there was damage to it.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to your examination just of the tail light — — what if any instruments did you utilize in the course of your examination of the tail light?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So during my examination I used a stereo zoom microscope, a polarized light microscope, a comparison microscope, as well as an FTIR with a microscope attachment, and a microspectrophotometer, also known as a microspec.
MR. LALLY: Now, the FTIR — I believe you've already discussed in your testimony. As far as the microspec is concerned, can you explain to the jury what that instrument is, how it's used, and how you used it in this examination specifically?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So a microspec is used to examine items that have color. So essentially your sample is exposed to visible light, reacts in a certain way — some of the light gets absorbed, some of it gets transmitted — and we get a spectrum, and it's representative of the dye or pigment in the sample.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to item 7-18.18 — that being the debris from the victim's clothing — what if any observations or measurements did you take in reference to that particular item?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So I noted that there was some clear plastic material as well as some red plastic material, and I would have to refer to my report for exact measurements of those items.
MR. LALLY: You can go ahead and do that.
MS. HANLEY: So the piece of clear plastic measured approximately 1/8 of an inch by 1/16 of an inch, and the largest piece of one of the red plastic pieces measured approximately 1/16 of an inch by less than 1/16 of an inch, and the smallest piece from that measured approximately less than 1/16 of an inch by less than 1/16 of an inch.
MR. LALLY: As far as measurements go — as far as the lab is concerned — is 1/16 of an inch sort of the bottom threshold as far as measurements go?
MS. HANLEY: Yes. So if something is less than that, it's just noted as less than 1/16 of an inch.
MR. LALLY: Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes. And with regard to that debris — the clear and red plastic from the debris — what if any instruments did you use to conduct your examination of those pieces? So I examined a portion of the clear plastic as well as one of the pieces of the red plastic. I examined them microscopically, and I analyzed portions instrumentally using an FTIR and a microspec.
MR. LALLY: And based on those examinations, starting with the clear plastic material that you observed, what if any conclusions did you come to with reference to a comparison of the clear plastic material to the tail light housing?
MS. HANLEY: So the clear plastic from item 7-18.18 was found to be consistent in color and instrumental properties with the examined portion of the clear plastic from the tail light. So accordingly, the clear plastic from 7-18.18 could have originated from the clear plastic from item 3-1, the tail light, or from another source with the same characteristics.
MR. LALLY: Now, similarly, from your examination of the red pieces of plastic from the tail light versus the red pieces of plastic contained within the debris, what if any conclusion were you able to come to from your examination and comparison of those?
PARENTHETICAL: [pause]
PARENTHETICAL: [inaudible/sidebar]
JUDGE CANNONE: — May I approach? — Which one? Victor? — Victor.
MR. LALLY: Yes. Thank you very much, ma'am. I have no further questions.
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So the examined portions of the red plastic from item 7-18.18 were found to be consistent in color, microscopic appearance, and instrumental properties with the examined portions of the red plastic from the tail light, item 3-1. And so accordingly, the red plastic from 7-18.18 could have originated from the red plastic from item 3-1, the tail light, or from another source with the same characteristics.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. One moment.
JUDGE CANNONE: Right. Actually, Mr. Jackson, before you begin —
MR. JACKSON: May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Good morning, Miss — well, almost afternoon. Good morning.
MS. HANLEY: Good morning.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to show you a document just to begin our conversation this morning, if I may. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: This has been previously identified as BV — as in Victor Victor — and I'd like to ask you first of all to take a look at that and tell me if you generally recognize what that document is.
MS. HANLEY: Yes. It appears to be a chain of custody of several items.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And is that a chain of custody document reflective of the crime lab's case number in this case? Sort of a clumsy question — do you understand what my question is?
MS. HANLEY: It is the chain of custody for 22-02184.
MR. JACKSON: And is that the case number that the Massachusetts State Police crime lab assigned to this case that you're testifying about today?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you've seen reports like this before, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: They're routinely used in the crime lab to track evidence and maintain chain of custody — at least at the crime lab. Is that right?
MS. HANLEY: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And the information contained in the report is entered at or near the time of the event that's memorialized?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And it's relied on generally by the crime lab as a business record, correct?
MS. HANLEY: As a record of the events — — memorialized. Yes. It's a record of the chain of custody of items within the lab.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And my question is: is it relied on by the lab for truth and accuracy — as best you can maintain it — to track items of evidence within the lab?
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
MS. HANLEY: Yes, it does track items.
MR. JACKSON: And the information contained in the report is presumed by you and other supervisors at the lab to be accurate? Is that right?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I would move for the admission of BV as an exhibit.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: We'll see you inside.
MR. JACKSON: My request at sidebar is reserved.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Miss Hanley, I want to draw your attention specifically to the glass pieces that Mr. Lally asked you about. Would you agree that there are a lot of numbers that were discussed?
MS. HANLEY: Correct. A lot of — I compared 3-2 to 7-12, and sub-A, B, C, and D of 7-12 were compared with 3-2 and 3-3. A lot of numbers, right? Yes, there are a lot of numbers. Items.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I want to try, if I can — see how well it goes — to clear that up and categorize those.
MS. HANLEY: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Perhaps — would you agree that we could put the items that you compared and examined in your analysis in four categories: 3-2, the cup or the glass; 3-3, the bumper glass; 7-12, the nine pieces of glass recovered by a trooper named Bukhenik at the scene; and 7-14, a single piece of glass recovered by a trooper named Proctor at the scene? Would you agree that those four categories are basically what you analyzed between and among each other?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, there are four total items.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And within those items there were some subcategories of items in some of those, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, because some of the items had multiple pieces, so they were labeled just to keep track of the pieces.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So if I could ask you to take those one at a time — pardon me — 3-2, under that column visually, that would be a single item, just the cup, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: 3-3, under that — single item, the bumper — there would be five sub-items: A, B, C, D, and E?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, that's correct.
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Public school education. Under 7-12, the third column, there are nine pieces, correct? A, B, C, D, E, F as in Frank, I, K, and L — are the nine glass pieces, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct. They're close to being alphabetical — not quite toward the end, right? I would have to look at my report for the exact letters.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Go ahead and look at your report.
MS. HANLEY: So the nine pieces of clear apparent glass were labeled as A, B, C, D, E, F, I, K, and L.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And then of course the last category would be 7-14 — that's a single piece of glass that was recovered at the scene by a trooper, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson, I'm going to see counsel at sidebar for just a minute on this.
MR. JACKSON: All right. So the last category we were talking about — 7-14 — that was a single piece of glass, correct?
MS. HANLEY: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. First of all, I'm going to ask you to take your comparisons one at a time, if I can. You compared the cup in 3-2 to the nine pieces recovered at the scene — A, B, C, D, E, F, I, K, and L — correct?
MS. HANLEY: Is that 7-12 you're talking about? 7-12, thank you. Sorry, can you say the letters again? I just don't know if I heard all of them.
MR. JACKSON: A, b, c, d, e, f, i, k, l?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Of those pieces that I just mentioned, the cup was a match to a, b, c, d, f, and k, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct. Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Pieces e and i were compared to each other and you matched them, correct?
MS. HANLEY: So I believe I have to look further in my notes, but I believe e and i were found to fit together by, um, properties — meaning mechanical properties. Yes. But I would have to check my notes, but I believe it was the previous analyst that looked at 7-12 that found the physical match between e and i.
MR. JACKSON: But that wasn't you.
MS. HANLEY: Is it okay if I look at my notes?
MR. JACKSON: Sure. I don't want to get bogged down, but yes, please.
MS. HANLEY: So item 7-12 was previously examined by another analyst in the trace unit. Specifically, e and i — I received, when I opened this item for examination, e and i were taped together because they were found to have a physical match by the analyst who previously examined the item.
MR. JACKSON: Great. Importantly, e, i, and l, however, were not found to match the cup in 3-2, correct?
MS. HANLEY: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. You also compared the cup in 3-2 to the five items recovered on the bumper in 3-3, correct? I'm sorry, say that again? Against the five items A, B, C, D, and E in 3-3, the bumper glass, correct?
MS. HANLEY: I did examine — I compared item 3-2 to two of the pieces marked as A and B from item 3-3, and those were deemed not to match the cup.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. And you did not analyze C and D, correct? I'm assuming that's because of size.
MS. HANLEY: The rest of the items were not used for physical match examination due to size and condition.
MR. JACKSON: So as you sit here, none of the items on the bumper were deemed to match the cup, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. So you did end up analyzing one of the items on the bumper — item E, as in echo — and you analyzed that against the single piece of glass found at the scene in 7-14, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you used a variety, it sounds like, of analyses, including microscopy, UV light, the glass refractive index, GRIM process, correct?
MS. HANLEY: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You also used the FTIR, is that right?
MS. HANLEY: Infrared spectrometry? That's incorrect.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, you did not use FTIR in this analysis?
MS. HANLEY: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. But in the analysis that you did use, you found that there was a match between item E on the bumper and the single piece of glass in 7-14, correct?
MS. HANLEY: They were found to be consistent — sorry, they are found to be consistent in physical and instrumental properties.
MR. JACKSON: Importantly, you also compared the single piece of glass in our sort of visual column 4, 7-14 — that single piece of glass — to the cup. We found that it didn't match, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. So lastly, you tested the single piece of glass found in the fourth column, 7-14, against the nine pieces of glass found in 7-12 — a, b, c, d, e, f, i, k, and l — correct?
MS. HANLEY: I did compare item 7-14 to item 3-2 and the nine pieces in item 7-12.
MR. JACKSON: So another way to put that would be you analyzed column 4 against column 3, correct?
MS. HANLEY: I examined them for a possible physical match, and they did not match.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. There was no physical match to item 7-14. May I approach briefly?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Do you want to show Mr. Lally what you have?
MR. JACKSON: Sure. I'm looking for the one that was already labeled and I don't have it. May I approach the clerk magistrate and ask if he's got WW by chance?
COURT CLERK: No, I do. [unintelligible — exhibit retrieval]
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. I'd like you to take a look at that document, just glance it over for a second, and let me know when you've had an opportunity to study that.
MS. HANLEY: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: You've taken a look at that single-page document?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Does that appear to accurately reflect, in sort of a visual manner, what you've just testified to about your analysis of each of these pieces, irrespective of the text on the item — just the analysis of the items specified in that document?
MS. HANLEY: I'm not quite sure what — I've never seen this before. I'm not quite sure what, um —
JUDGE CANNONE: I think you have to move along, Mr. Jackson, for all the reasons we talked about at sidebar.
MR. JACKSON: I understand. My question is a relatively simple one. Is this — and if you don't understand something on the document, just say so — is this a visual representation, an accurate visual representation, of what you've just testified to in terms of what matched and what didn't match, where the green matches, the circle with the red through it doesn't match?
MS. HANLEY: I would need to go through my conclusions and compare to confirm.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. It is accurate to say — use a cheat sheet for a second — it is accurate to say that the cup was not found to match any items that were found on the bumper?
MS. HANLEY: That's correct. That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Also it's fair to say that the piece recovered under 7-14, the single piece of glass recovered under 7-14, does not match either the cup, nor does that piece match any of the nine pieces in 7-12, correct? And you can look at your notes if that's easier for you.
JUDGE CANNONE: We just want the right answer, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Right, of course. Take your time with your notes if that's easier for you.
MS. HANLEY: I'm sorry, can you just repeat the last question?
MR. JACKSON: The single piece of glass under 7-14 neither matches the cup, nor does it match any of the nine pieces found in 7-12. In other words, it stands alone. Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: That's correct. So, 7-14 — there was no physical match between 7-14 and 3-2 or any of the pieces in 7-12.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. And then my final question is: the only piece of glass material that was recovered from the bumper — item E — the only thing that any piece on that bumper matched was the single piece of glass found in 7-14, correct?
MS. HANLEY: So piece E from item 3-3 was the piece that I examined microscopically and instrumentally. It was found to be consistent in physical and instrumental properties with 7-14. And that's the only piece of material on that bumper — in that section, in other words in 3-3 — that matched anything else in your analysis, a piece that was found singularly at, under 7-14, correct? The only — yes, it was found to be consistent.
MR. JACKSON: Thanks. That's all I have. Thank you. [unintelligible] Court staff, off-mic — unintelligible
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. Your next witness, Mr. Lally?
COURT CLERK: The Commonwealth call Sergeant Yuri Bukhenik to the stand.
COURT CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Lally.
MS. HANLEY: — material.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as characteristically speaking, from plastic and/or glass, what are some of the commonalities of those items as they're found in general?
MR. JACKSON: Objection, beyond the scope.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. LALLY: Now, again, from the drinking glass that was recovered on scene — that was a match for six of the pieces of glass that were found on the roadway, or on the ground, at 34 Fairview Road, correct?
MS. HANLEY: I believe it was six. I just would have to confirm in my —
MR. LALLY: Go ahead, you can look at your notes.
MS. HANLEY: Yes, it was six pieces from 7-12. And then it was piece E from item 3-3, from the bumper of the defendant's vehicle, that was found to be — — consistent with clear glass that was found on the ground at 34 Fairview Road, correct.
MR. LALLY: Yes, that's correct. Nothing further.
MR. JACKSON: Nothing further.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, thank you very much, Miss Hanley. You are all set. off-record — exhibit exchange between counsel and clerk Your next witness, Mr. Lally.