Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveChristina Hanley — Direct/Cross/Redirect
414 linesWhereupon, CHRISTINA HANLEY having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified under oath as follows:
COURT CLERK: I really need you to keep your voice up.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Good morning, ma'am.
MS. HANLEY: Good morning.
MR. LALLY: Could you please state your name and spell your last name 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, ma'am?
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, if any, degree did you receive with regard to your undergraduate?
MS. HANLEY: I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry with a concentration in Forensics from Merrimack College.
MR. LALLY: And then after receiving those degrees from Merrimack, 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 work there in 2008, what did you do next?
MS. HANLEY: So I began as a Chemist I in the drug identification unit. Once I completed my training in there, I was promoted to a Chemist II. In 2009, I transferred into the trace unit as a Chemist II, which is the equivalent of a forensic scientist II currently. And, in 2017, I was promoted to a Forensic Scientist III in the trace arson and explosives unit.
MR. LALLY: And, if you could, describe for the jury the sort of difference between a forensic scientist or a Chemist I, Forensic Scientist II, Forensic Scientist III within your lab?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So a Forensic Scientist II is considered like a bench analyst, working on casework.
JUDGE CANNONE: Ms. Hanley, I'm going to ask you to keep your voice up really loud. Okay?
MS. HANLEY: A Forensic Scientist III isa unit supervisor, and I also perform casework.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And how long is it you've been a Forensic Scientist III or a supervisor within the trace unit?
MS. HANLEY: I have been a supervisor since 2017. So approximately seven years.
COURT REPORTER: Keep your voice up, please, ma'am.
MS. HANLEY: Okay.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Now, Ms. Hanley, with reference to just 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: And 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 jurors 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, in examining trace evidence such as paint, fibers, hairs, glass, tape, miscellaneous items and physical match examinations and serial number restorations on firearms.
MR. LALLY: Now, 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 essentially?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So an 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 code or 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, who, if anyone, reviews your work?
MS. HANLEY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the end of that.
MR. LALLY: Sure. 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 as a result of there is 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 a proficiency test?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And 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: 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 sub-disciplines 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: 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 No. 22-02184?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And the name of the suspect on that is a 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 is assigned a unique lab number and bar code. 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 over the -- you mentioned you have a variety of sort of sub- disciplines or different types or 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, instrumentality are you using to conduct your examination?
MS. HANLEY: 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 then it goes through a process of cooling and heating, and it looks for the match point temperature. And, from that match point temperature, we are 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 -- is that something that you're viewing and how are you viewing it and what are you viewing it on?
MS. HANLEY: It is 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 it 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: Can you explain, first of all, what that term stands for?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. It stands for Fourier transform infrared spectrometer.
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 and light, and it reacts ina 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, 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 were -- 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: 3-2 was a clear apparent drinking glass.
MR. LALLY: And Item 3-3?
MS. HANLEY: Item 3-3, I believe, was the clear apparent glass pieces recovered from the bumper of the vehicle.
MR. LALLY: And then Item 7-12?
MS. HANLEY: That was some clear apparent glass that was recovered from the ground.
MR. LALLY: And the ground at 34 Fairview Road; 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 that I 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.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. You can use your notes.
MS. HANLEY: So the diameter of the bottom of the drinking glass was two and three-quarter inches. I'm sorry. Approximately two and three- quarter inches. And it measured approximately two and a half inches in height.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: In addition to the measurements that you took, what, if anything, else did you note as far as the interior or the exterior of that glass cup?
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 with all broken, irregular edges. The largest piece measured approximately seven-eighths of an inch by five-sixteenths of an inch. And the smallest piece measured approximately three-sixteenths of an inch by one-eighth 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 did -- I also used the GRIM instrument for analytical instrumentation.
MR. LALLY: Now, with regard to Item 7-12 or 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 them initially?
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, if anything, did you note during your initial examination of them and observations did you make in regard to them?
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 -- 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. So initially I look at the color, whether there are like flat, smooth surfaces to the glass, whether it's flat or 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 Item 7-12 and 7-14. And then I also dida comparison of 3-2 to Item 3-3. And then I also compared Item 3-3 to 7-14 for a possible physical match. And, in addition, I also sampled some pieces for use, for examination on the GRIM instrument.
MR. LALLY: Let me ask you just as far as classification goes, are you familiar with the terms as far as a class characteristic versus an individual characteristic?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain what those terms mean and how they relate to each other within your specific forensic field?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So a class characteristic is when a material can be associated with a group of items that share characteristics, 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.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. 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 is no physical match with the three other pieces from 7-12.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Then 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 then 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 Item 3 -- 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. 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: Now, Ms. Hanley, you used a term in there as far as "instrumental properties." 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 glass, 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 two of the pieces from Item 3-3 or one of the pieces, excuse me, Piece "E" from 3-3, which was from the bumper of the defendant's vehicle, was consistent with a piece of clear glass from 7-14, which was found on the ground, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, Ms. Hanley, in addition to that trace analysis that you performed with regard to the glass pieces, what, if any, other additional examination did you do with regard to items of debris?
MS. HANLEY: Yes. 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: 7-18.18 is scrapings, trace material recovered from the victim's clothing.
MR. LALLY: And that would be both an orange tee shirt and a gray long-sleeve shirt; 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 who?
MS. HANLEY: I believe it was Maureen that did the scraping of the clothing and had those scrapings 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 what, if any, items did -- the other item was 3-1; is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And that was the actual sort of taillight 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 would have to double check in my --
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead.
MS. HANLEY: Okay. I'm sorry. It was Trooper Christopher Moore that had that item delivered to the lab.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to Item 3-1, the passenger side taillight from the vehicle, what, if any, observations or things did you note in regard to sort of your initial examination of the taillight?
MS. HANLEY: I did notice that there were portions of the taillight, portions that were clear and red that had broken, irregular edges. It appeared to me that there was damage to it.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to your examination just of the taillight now, what, if any, instruments did you utilize in the course of your examination of the taillight?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So during my examination, I useda stereo zoom microscope, a polarized light microscope, a comparison microscope as well as a FTIR with a microscope attachment and a micro spectrophotometer, also known as a micro spec.
MR. LALLY: Now, the GRIM and the FTIR I believe you've already discussed in your testimony. As far as the micro spec is concerned, can you explain to the jury sort of what that instrument is and how it is used and how you used it in this examination specifically?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So a micro spec is used to examine items that have color. So essentially your sample is exposed to visible light. It 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. I would have to refer to my report for exact measurements of those items.
JUDGE CANNONE: You can go ahead and do that.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. HANLEY: So the piece of clear plastic measured approximately one-eighth of an inch by one-sixteenth of an inch. And the largest piece of one of the red plastic pieces measured approximately one-sixteenth of an inch by less than one-sixteenth of an inch. And the smallest piece from that measured approximately less than one- sixteenth of an inch by less than one-sixteenth of an inch.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: As far as measurements go as far as your examination as far as the lab is concerned, is one- sixteenth of an inch sort of the bottom row as far as measurements go?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: So if something is less than that, it's just sort of noted as less than one-sixteenth of an inch; is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And, with regard to that debris, the clear and red plastic from the debris, what, if any, examination or what, if any, instruments did you use to conduct your examination just of those pieces?
MS. HANLEY: 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 micro spec.
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 comparison of the clear plastic material to the taillight housing?
MS. HANLEY: 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 taillight. So accordingly, the clear plastic from 7-18.18 could have originated from the clear plastic from Item 3-1, the taillight or from another source with the same characteristics.
MR. LALLY: Now, Similarly, from your examination of the red pieces of plastic in the taillight versus the red pieces of plastic contained within the debris, what, if any, conclusion were you able to come to from your examination of the comparison of those items?
MS. HANLEY: So the red -- the examined portions of the plastic from Item 7-18.18 was found to be consistent in color, microscopic appearance, instrumental properties with the examined portions of the red plastic from the taillight, Item 3-1. So accordingly, the red plastic from 7-18.18 could have originated from the red plastic from Item 3-1, the taillight, or from another source with the same characteristics.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: May I have one moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Thank you very much, ma'am. I have no further questions.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Actually, Mr. Jackson, before you begin, I'd like to see you both.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE CANNONE: So I am glad I had the opportunity to look at this before the break and I'm still where I am at with this as argument. So I'll let you put on the pictures of 3-2, 3-3, 7-12 and 7-14 and ask those questions about where things are found. Anything under that is not permitted.
MR. JACKSON: Can I show her so she can go back to tracking of this because --
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask her if it will help her.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Sure. At this point, my intention is to simply ask her if it tracks with her testimony a few minutes ago, which, as the Court can tell, it's extraordinarily complicated when you talk about all the numbers.
JUDGE CANNONE: I don't think it is. I think that's much more simply --
MR. JACKSON: Because you have this.
JUDGE CANNONE: No, no. I didn't look at this when I just did that.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: So let's try it without. Okay?
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay? Thank you. And this has been marked for identification, and your rights are saved on this.
MR. JACKSON: And I may use that with this witness?
JUDGE CANNONE: If it will help her.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I'll ask her.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may I approach the clerk magistrate for just a moment to get "VV" for Identification? Victor Victor.
JUDGE CANNONE: You may.
MR. JACKSON: May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Good morning or good afternoon, well almost afternoon, Ms. Hanley.
MS. HANLEY: Good morning.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to show you a document just to begin our conversation this morning, if I may.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: This has been previously identified as "VV" 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? That's 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 the Massachusetts State Crime Lab, Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, assigned to this case that you're testifying about today?
MS. HANLEY: Yes. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And you've seen reports like this before, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: They are routinely used in the crime lab to track evidence and maintain of 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 is relied on generally by the crime lab as a business record, correct, as a record of the events memorialized?
MS. HANLEY: 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?
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: Your Honor, I would move for the admission of "VV" as an exhibit.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I will see that and we'll see you at the sidebar.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE CANNONE: Your objection, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Hearsay and it's a report, is what it is.
MR. JACKSON: It falls under the business record exception.
JUDGE CANNONE: I don't see this as a business record.
MR. JACKSON: If it's been maintained in the regular course of business, the items are established at or near the time of the event in question. They are relied on routinely by the lab and maintain their accuracy. How is that not a business record?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm not letting this in. What T'll do is let me think about it. Okay?
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
JUDGE CANNONE: I may change my ruling. I haven't even had a chance to even take a look at this.
MR. JACKSON: That's fine. I don't necessarily need it right now. I'm not going to show it.
JUDGE CANNONE: You cannot show it.
MR. JACKSON: I wasn't planning on it.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Can I give this back to the clerk magistrate?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. And I want him to take the Post-Its off. Okay?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, Your Honor. My request at sidebar is reserved?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Ms. Hanley, I want to draw your attention specifically to the glass pieces that Mr. Lally asked you about. Would you agree that -- there's a lot of numbers that were discussed, correct, meaning 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?
MS. HANLEY: Yes. There were a lot of numbers, items.
MR. JACKSON: I want to try if I can -- we'll see how well it goes -- to clear that up and categorize those. 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's 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, 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.
MR. JACKSON: Public school education. Under 7-12, the third column, there's 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.
MR. JACKSON: So they are close to being alphabetical; not quite toward the end, right?
MS. HANLEY: I would have to look at my report for the exact letters. But --
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure. Go ahead.
MS. HANLEY: So the nine pieces of clear apparent glass were labeled as "A," "B," "C," "D," "E," "F," "I" "K" and "L."
BY MR. JACKSON:
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 Trooper Proctor, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Objection, Your Honor, just --
JUDGE CANNONE: So I'm going to see counsel at Sidebar for just a moment.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:
JUDGE CANNONE: So rather than sustain every objection because one portion of your statement is objectionable, I'd rather move this along. So recovered at the scene by Trooper Proctor -- hearsay part of it. So I can sustain every objection that he makes regarding the chart with Proctor glass retrieved by Proctor and we can be here all morning.
MR. JACKSON: T'll cut it out.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. You know what's objectionable and what's not, and I understand you're trying to put things in. If there is an objection to every guestion, I'll sustain it.
MR. JACKSON: Understood.
JUDGE CANNONE: Just like if there is an objection to every leading question, I'll sustain it.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Okay. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
MR. JACKSON: May I, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. JACKSON:
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?
JUDGE CANNONE: Is that 7-12 we are talking about?
MR. JACKSON: That's 7-12, Your Honor. Thank you.
MS. HANLEY: I'm sorry. Say the letters again? I just don't know if I heard all of them.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Sure. "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: 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 -- I'd have to look further in my notes, but I believe "E" and "I" were found to fit together by --
MR. JACKSON: Physical properties, meaning mechanical properties?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, but I would have to check my notes. But I believe it was the previous analyst that looked at 7-12 that found a physical match between "E" and "I."
MR. JACKSON: But that wasn't you?
MS. HANLEY: Is it okay if I look at my notes?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. JACKSON:
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?
MS. HANLEY: I'm sorry. Say that again?
MR. JACKSON: You also analyzed the cup in 3-2 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.
MR. JACKSON: And those were deemed not to match the cup, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you did not analyze "C" and "D," correct? I'm assuming that's because of size?
MS. HANLEY: So the rest of the items were not used for physical match examination due to size and condition.
MR. JACKSON: All right. 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 both -- well, you used a variety, it sounds like, of analyses, including microscopy, UV light, the glass refractive index, the GRIM process, correct?
MS. HANLEY: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You also used the FTIR, the infrared spectrometry?
MS. HANLEY: That's incorrect?
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And 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. They were found to be consistent in physical and instrumental properties.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So 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 and 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 now, correct?
MS. HANLEY: I examined them for a possible physical match.
MR. JACKSON: And they did not match, correct?
MS. HANLEY: There was no physical match to Item 7-14.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may I approach briefly?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Show Mr. Lally, please.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. May I approach the clerk magistrate and ask if he's got "WW," by chance?
JUDGE CANNONE: I do.
MR. JACKSON: May I borrow that from the Court? Thank you.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: 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: (Witness complies.)
MR. JACKSON: Okay. 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 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.
MR. JACKSON: Understood.
MS. HANLEY: I'm not quite sure what --
JUDGE CANNONE: I think you have to move along, Mr. Jackson, for all the reasons we talked about.
MR. JACKSON: I understand.
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: My question is a relatively simple one. Is this a -- 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 with the green matches, the circle with the red through it, doesn't match, or no?
MS. HANLEY: I would need to go through my conclusion and compare to confirm.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Fair enough. It is accurate to say -- let me use the 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. That's correct, correct?
MS. HANLEY: 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?
JUDGE CANNONE: You can look at your notes if that's easier for you. You just want the right answer, Mr. Jackson, right?
MR. JACKSON: Of course. That's all I want.
JUDGE CANNONE: Take your time and look through your notes if that's easier for you.
MS. HANLEY: I'm sorry. Can you just repeat the last question that you asked?
BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Of course. 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?
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 for that. And then my final question is the only piece of material, 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.
MR. JACKSON: 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, the piece that was found singularly under 7-14, correct? It's the only match?
MS. HANLEY: Yes. It was found to be consistent.
MR. JACKSON: Thanks. That's all I have. Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Just briefly, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Now, Ms. Hanley, within Item 7-12, there were nine pieces of glass and five pieces of plastic, correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the comparison analysis that you're conducting is concerned, why is it, as far as the pieces of plastic are concerned, why is that not part of the comparative analysis?
MS. HANLEY: I didn't examine the plastic pieces for a physical match because there were no other plastic pieces for comparison for a physical match. I examined the glass pieces for a possible physical match.
MR. LALLY: What are some of the differences from an elemental standpoint as far as plastic versus glass?
MS. HANLEY: Well, plastic is a type of polymer. A different type of analysis would be conducted if I was examining plastic versus glass, something like a plastic, something that we refer to as anisotropic. Glass is isotropic. They are different types of 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 are found in general?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Beyond the scope?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
BY MR. LALLY:
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 would just have to confirm in my report.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead and refer to your report. Yes. It was six pieces from 7-12.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: 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?
MS. HANLEY: Yes. That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Nothing further.
MR. JACKSON: Nothing further, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Thank you very much, Ms. Hanley. You are all set.
MS. HANLEY: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the witness is excused.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Your next witness, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.