Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveYuri Bukhenik — Direct (Part 1)
1,495 lines(Whereupon, there is a sidebar conference as follows:)
MR. LALLY: So, Your Honor, the next witness is Sergeant Bukhenik. With reference to his testimony or at least a portion of it, I have provided to the Court some photographs that I intended to use with this witness.
JUDGE CANNONE: Are they autopsy photos?
MR. LALLY: So not the autopsy ones. The autopsy ones I did also provide to the Court but there was a separate set of photos from Good Samaritan, and that's what I would be looking -- the autopsy ones I'm going to use with medical.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. That's the only ones I think I have.
MR. LALLY: There should have been two sets in the envelope.
JUDGE CANNONE: In the same envelope?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: They're probably on my desk. Do you have a copy here? Jim, I don't know where they are.
MR. LALLY: I don't have a copy here and I don't need to address it until probably after the lunch break.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: But I just want to flag it for the Court because it is something that I would like to introduce at least some of those photographs through this witness.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is there an objection?
MR. LALLY: No.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I'll find it during lunch.
MR. LALLY: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is he here?
MR. LALLY: He is.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, the Commonwealth calls Sergeant Yuriy Bukhenik to the stand.
Whereupon, YURIY BUKHENIK having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified under oath as follows:
JUDGE CANNONE: Whenever you are ready, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: thank you, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Good afternoon, sir.
MR. BUKHENIK: Good afternoon.
MR. LALLY: Would you please state your name and spell your last name for the jury?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir. My name is Yuriy, Y-U-R-I-Y, last name Bukhenik, B-U-K-H-E-N-I-K.
MR. LALLY: And how are you employed, sir?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm employed by the Massachusetts State Police.
MR. LALLY: And how long have you been a trooper with the state police?
MR. BUKHENIK: I've been a trooper since 2012.
MR. LALLY: And prior to being employed as a trooper with the state police, what, if any, other employment or background do you have as far as law enforcement is concerned?
MR. BUKHENIK: My law enforcement career began in 2003 when I graduated from the military police school at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri while I was enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. From there, I was stationed at Quantico, Virginia with the Marine Corps Residential Helicopter Squadron. I provided security for the presidential helicopter and assets, obtaining a top secret Yankee White clearance. I was promoted meritoriously to corporal and sergeant and had a platoon of 44 Marines. From there, I was stationed in Camp Pendleton, California, where I was a patrol supervisor on base as a military police officer. Once my enlistment ended, I decided to come home and pursue a law enforcement career here in Massachusetts in the communities that I grew up in. I first worked with the V.A. Hospital Police before I obtained a secret clearance, which was a requirement of the employment. After that, I worked at the Attleboro Police Department in uniform patrol as well as the S.W.A.T. with the Attleboro, Massachusetts Police Department. In 2011, I applied for the Massachusetts State Police, graduated and worked at the Sturbridge barracks, Millbury barracks and Foxboro barracks. In 2015, I was selected to come to the Norfolk District Attorney's Office with the detective unit and worked homicide cases as a trooper. In 2021, December, I was promoted and took on a supervisory role within the unit.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to your work within the unit of the detective unit of the Norfolk District Attorney's Office, what, if any, specialized training did you receive in regard to your work there?
MR. BUKHENIK: I've attended numerous homicide conferences, training in various aspects of digital device analysis and investigations in major crimes, homicides, drug investigations and so forth.
MR. LALLY: Now, were you working in that capacity with the state police detective unit on January 29th, 2022?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was.
MR. LALLY: And were you on call that day?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was on call as a Supervisor.
MR. LALLY: Now, can you explain to the jury as far as the on-call system within the detective unit -- well, let me ask you this first: What, if any, duties and responsibilities do you have as a sergeant or as a supervisor with reference to on-call duty and sort of how that works?
MR. BUKHENIK: As a supervisor on call, responsibilities include answering the detective that's on call, any questions that might arise. Obviously, we don't all have the same experience. So we put our heads together and if it's a situation or a case scene that they have not been exposed to before, they call the supervisor for guidance, suggestions or bounce questions off of him in order to help them navigate that case.
MR. LALLY: And who was the on-call detective on this particular date of January 29th?
MR. BUKHENIK: January 29th, the morning hours up until 7:00 a.m., it was Trooper Michael Proctor.
MR. LALLY: And do you know Trooper Proctor?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. LALLY: And how long have you known Trooper Proctor?
MR. BUKHENIK: Since he came into the office in 2019, I believe. It was September or October of 2019.
MR. LALLY: And have you supervised Trooper Proctor sort of throughout his work within the office?
MR. BUKHENIK: I have supervised him throughout my supervisory position. So his entire time in the office while I was a supervisor, I supervised him directly. Yes.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as that on-call system or that on- call rotation is concerned, how was that determined or how does that sort of come into existence?
MR. BUKHENIK: The on-call system is formulated. It's compiled the month prior. So for example, if it was December, the beginning of December, the troopers in the office would submit their days requesting not to be on call due to trials, training, personal reasons or vacations that they had planned. Those days are submitted in the beginning of the month and then if it's in the beginning of December, for example, the on-call schedule for January is then compiled a month in advance, really.
MR. LALLY: So these were generated well in advance of whatever specific day a trooper is on call, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the detective unit within the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office, who, if anyone, is your supervisor?
MR. BUKHENIK: Currently, my supervisor is Lieutenant Fanning and the Unit Commander is Detective Lieutenant Brian Tully.
MR. LALLY: And that sort of pecking order, if you will, was that the way it was set up in January of 2022, as well?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it was.
MR. LALLY: Now, on this morning of January 29th, 2022, at some point do you get a call in the morning, and from whom do you initially get a call?
MR. BUKHENIK: I received a call approximately 6:44 in the morning or so from the H Troop Headquarters, which is the field headquarters for the metro Boston area, which also covers our county. And they advised me that there was a body in a snowbank in Canton. I asked for the details and advised them that I was not on call but that I would call the on-call trooper and let them know that there was a call-out requesting their assistance. So that's what I did. I called Trooper Proctor and advised him to contact Canton Police.
MR. LALLY: And following that initial contact that you had from the H Troop and then your call to Trooper Proctor, what happened then?
MR. BUKHENIK: Trooper Proctor began making phone calls, gathering information.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Next question.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: What was the next thing that happened as far as your involvement was concerned, sir?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was advised of the circumstances under which the body was located and what was transpiring. And I told Trooper Proctor that I would start shoveling out during the blizzard and then proceed to meet him in Canton to begin our investigation.
MR. LALLY: And where was it that you and Trooper Proctor first met up on that particular morning?
MR. BUKHENIK: We met at the Canton Police Department.
MR. LALLY: And do you recall approximately what time it was that you arrived at the Canton Police Department?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was approximately 9:15. Due to the amount of snow that was on the ground, the time that it took me to shovel out, the main roads -- actually, no roads were plowed at the time during my track. So I decided to drive my personal truck to the Canton Police Department because it was a four-wheel drive and meet Trooper Proctor there.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as your personal truck versus you have a work vehicle as well?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And you mentioned that the truck is four-wheel drive. What is the difference between your personal truck and its capabilities in weather versus the work vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: Well, at the time, there was approximately 10, 15 inches of snow that had accumulated already. My work vehicle is a sedan, low to the ground, low clearance, front-wheel drive. It wouldn't be able to navigate the road conditions at the time. My four- wheel drive vehicle is higher clearance from the roadway and was able to navigate the conditions at the time.
MR. LALLY: And, sir, when you arrived -- so at approximately 8:22 in the morning or so, where is it that you were at that point in time if you know?
MR. BUKHENIK: At 8:22, I would say I was still blowing the snow out of my driveway, clearing the path for my truck to leave.
MR. LALLY: And, when you arrive at the Canton Police Station, you mentioned that you met Trooper Proctor there. Do you recall who arrived first?
MR. BUKHENIK: Trooper Proctor was in the parking lot in his vehicle. And I pulled in, backed next to his, and we walked in together into the police department, I believe.
MR. LALLY: And, when you walked into the Canton Police Station on that morning sometime after 9:00 a.m., where is it that you went? Who, if anyone, did you talk to when you first got there?
MR. BUKHENIK: We walked into the police department. We were guided to the detective department or division of the P.D., and we met with the detectives from Canton and Sergeant Goode, who was the uniform patrol sergeant and having been the first responder to the scene, as well.
MR. LALLY: Now, without reference to anything that was communicated between the two of you, at some point prior to getting to the Canton Police Station, did you have conversations with Trooper Proctor?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: And did Trooper Proctor make you aware of conversations that he had had with other people prior to getting to the Canton Police Station?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that. It's a yes-or-no question.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And so you get to the Canton Police Station. You and Trooper Proctor then proceed to talk to Sergeant Goode; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And, again, without any reference to what was said to you by Sergeant Goode, did he relate some information to you, as well?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: No. T'll allow it.
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And, if you know, about how long was the period or the conversation that you had with Sergeant Goode at the Canton Police Station?
MR. BUKHENIK: The conversation with Sergeant Goode was probably 25 to 30 minutes. He walked up through his --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Next question, please. I'm going to stop you from answering that, Sergeant.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, Your Honor.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant Bukhenik, with reference to -- at some point, did you learn the name of the body or the person that was found on the lawn on Fairview Road?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: And who did you learn him to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: Mr. John O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: And, in reference to where Mr. O'Keefe's body was at that time, what, if any, information did you receive about that?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. BUKHENIK: We learned that Mr. O'Keefe's body was transported to the hospital, the Good Samaritan Hospital in Brockton.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And, in reference to the Good Samaritan Hospital in Brockton, who, if anyone, else were you told had been taken to that facility, as well, in relation to your response that morning?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. BUKHENIK: The defendant.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And, just to be clear, at some point over the course of your investigation, had you had or have you had interactions with Karen Read?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I have.
MR. LALLY: And, to be clear, when we say as far as Karen Read, the defendant, do you see her in the courtroom today?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: Could you identify just as to where she's seated or an article of clothing that she's wearing?
MR. BUKHENIK: She's seated between her legal defense team, wearing the white blouse.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, I'd just ask the record reflect the identification of the defendant by the witness.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: So upon having that conversation with Sergeant Goode at the Canton Police Station, where is it that you and Trooper Proctor went next?
MR. BUKHENIK: From the Canton Police Department, we proceeded to the McCabe residence.
MR. LALLY: And that was over on [REDACTED]; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct. No. [REDACTED]
MR. LALLY: And, when you arrive there, as far as transportation to that, is it you and Trooper Proctor in the same vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. I made the decision to drive us, that we only take one vehicle. In addition to Trooper Proctor being able to make phone calls and facilitate other logistics as necessary allowed him that freedom to do so while I operated the vehicle in the dangerous snow conditions.
MR. LALLY: The snow conditions that you were talking about as far as clearing out your driveway, the drive to the Canton Police Station, did those conditions persist throughout the day of the 29th?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, they did.
MR. LALLY: And so you make your way over to the McCabe residence. Again, without anything that was said, who, if anyone, did you speak with at the McCabe residence that morning?
MR. BUKHENIK: We first spoke with Ms. Jennifer McCabe. We then spoke to Mr. Matt McCabe. And then we spoke with Mr. Brian Albert.
MR. LALLY: And, with reference to each of those conversations, were they done collectively or separately or how were those interviews conducted?
MR. BUKHENIK: Each interview was conducted separately. We first interviewed Ms. Jennifer McCabe with request of Mr. McCabe to give us privacy. He proceeded upstairs. Once we were done with that interview, Mr. McCabe came downstairs and Ms. McCabe gave us the same courtesy. And, once that interview was over, Mr. Brian Albert had arrived, and we interviewed him briefly.
MR. LALLY: And is that sort of the typical process of how at least your unit conducts interviews with respect to civilians?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. With cooperating civilians, we typically advise them they were going to be scheduling an interview. We proceed to their location of convenience and separate them and get their version and recollection of events that we are inquiring about.
MR. LALLY: Now, after you spoke with those three individuals, yourself and Trooper Proctor at the McCabe residence, where is it that you and Trooper Proctor went next?
MR. BUKHENIK: We proceeded to the Good Samaritan Hospital in Brockton.
MR. LALLY: And where within the Good Samaritan Hospital did you go?
MR. BUKHENIK: We went to the emergency department.
MR. LALLY: And, within the emergency department, were you led to a specific room?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, we were.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, did you observe when you were in that room?
MR. BUKHENIK: Once in the room, we observed Mr. O'Keefe's body on the medical bed or gurney. His clothing which had been cut off of him were on the floor at the foot of the bed, a couple of feet away at the foot of the bed.
MR. LALLY: Now, first with regard to the clothing, what, if anything, did you do with regard to that?
MR. BUKHENIK: After viewing Mr. O'Keefe's body, we proceeded to identify the clothing items and bag them into evidence bags, notating which item anda brief description about each item of clothing.
MR. LALLY: So let me ask you just a little bit about that as far as that process is concerned. So when an item of evidence is collected by you or by your unit during the course of an investigation, is there sort of a policy or a protocol or how are things -- what to do with things when you collect them and take them into custody and evidence?
MR. BUKHENIK: If we deem an item to be of evidentiary value, we identify the item. We take a brief description of it, and we label the evidence bag with that description. We notate who is taking the item into custody, typically who located the item, the time that it's located and the location from which it was seized or taken or collected.
MR. LALLY: And, with regard to items of clothing, is that something that would be placed in just one big bag of clothes or like how would those be packaged in evidence bags?
MR. BUKHENIK: Mr. O'Keefe's clothing which was already in one big pile on the floor, we packaged all --
MR. JACKSON: Objection. May we approach briefly?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Jurors, feel free to stand up and stretch.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
MR. JACKSON: There is an ongoing objection to the use of a pronoun "we," we did this, we did that. That's exceptionally, I think the Court can tell after several weeks of trial, is exceptionally important that we know who did what. It's inappropriate for him to say we did anything. He needs to define who did what. I don't want to continually object. So perhaps Mr. Lally can instruct him to tell me what you did and what Trooper Proctor did. Otherwise, I'm going to object.
JUDGE CANNONE: Well, you can do it on cross.
MR. JACKSON: Except all the information is coming in muddled and vague. We put it ina bag. "We" didn't put it in aback. Somebody put it ina bag.
JUDGE CANNONE: All I got was we gathered. I mean, we are all here, talking. You can then bring up what you say and what I say.
MR. JACKSON: Right. But we are not holding that pen. You are holding the pen. I mean, that is my problem with that kind of testimony. It gets very garbled and muddled and I have to correct it. I have to protect the record. I don't want to have to object to every single question if he uses the pronoun "we." He needs to testify to what he did or what he observed somebody else do. That's all.
JUDGE CANNONE: What do you say?
MR. LALLY: I don't think the term "we" is objectionable. So, I mean, counsel can object all he wants, but I mean as far as -- you know, again, I think the Court is correct in that these are questions counsel can explore on cross as far as his recollection as to what he specifically did versus what someone else specifically did.
MR. JACKSON: Then I have to go over every single question that he asks on direct? It's extremely inefficient. It is an easy instruction to give the witness: Please testify to what you did and what you saw. It's super simple. That's all I'm asking.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I'm not sustaining your objection. Mr. Lally, if you choose to say who did what, fine. If you don't then you can do what you want with it. And I understand where all of this is going. Let's just get through the sort of nonprejudicial stuff.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant Bukhenik, when you come into the hospital room where Mr. O'Keefe's body was, there's clothing items that were on the floor; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And do you recall how those clothing items were in relation to each other, in relation to the floor?
MR. BUKHENIK: They were positioned on the floor ina pile stacked on top of each other, and they were in the condition of being soaking wet.
MR. LALLY: And, with respect to those clothing items, do you recall what those clothing items were individually?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And what were they?
MR. BUKHENIK: They were a plaid pair of boxer underwear. It was an orange colored design print tee shirt. It was a blue pair of Lucky Brand jeans; a belt; a two-tone gray, light, thin hooded sweatshirt; and a right sneaker, black in color, with white design, a Nike brand. December 18, 2024
MR. LALLY: And how many sneakers were there contained within that property?
MR. BUKHENIK: One, the right sneaker.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, observations did you make of the condition beyond them being soaking wet?
MR. BUKHENIK: I also recognized, due to the aroma and visual observations, traces of vomit on the clothing.
MR. LALLY: And, with regard to those items that you observed on the floor, what, if anything, did you and/or Trooper Proctor do with reference to those clothing items?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow him to answer.
MR. BUKHENIK: Once we went through the clothing, we collected each item and put it into a large evidence bag. We double bagged it due to the wetness of the clothing so it would not seep through. We also identified the fact that there was only one sneaker. So I requested that Trooper Proctor contact the paramedics that transported Mr. O'Keefe from 34 Fairview to the hospital and have them once again check their ambulance to see if there was another sneaker inadvertently left behind in the ambulance vehicle.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Now, prior to sort of physically touching this or any other piece of evidence, what, if any, other sort of precautions do you take prior to handling, tactile handling of any piece of evidence?
MR. BUKHENIK: Anytime we handle evidence which obviously we take great caution not to destroy, alter or discard any evidence, we also put on gloves in order to help preserve that item.
MR. LALLY: And, in reference to these items or items of -- anything of evidentiary value that you seize as evidence, once you take it and secure it into an evidence bag, what happens to it from there?
MR. BUKHENIK: Once it's secure in the evidence bag, it is sealed and logged into our evidence storage facility at the office. And then, as necessary, it is signed off, shipped off for processing, reviewed for court proceedings.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as that sealing is concerned, how are bags or boxes of items of evidentiary value, how are they sealed?
MR. BUKHENIK: Once the bag is --
MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. BUKHENIK: Once the bag is sealed, it is utilized -- we utilize tape, typically red or yellow tape. Once it's secure, we initial and date the tape on the edge. That procedure helps identify the time and date it was sealed and by who with the initials.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And then once that bag or box is sealed, if that bag or box is subsequently opened at a later time, what, if any, notation or what, if any, recordation of that is made?
MR. BUKHENIK: Anytime a piece of evidence is signed out for review, it's logged in the tracking system. In addition, anytime a piece of evidence is opened, with the container being a bag or a box is opened, and the tape is cut, it is then resealed, reinitialed and dated by the trooper or an individual who is signing that evidence out and then returning it.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the evidence bag or box is concerned, when it's been opened, is that something that is noticeable based on the sealing and resealing of that particular receptacle?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir. It is definitely noticeable and it's noted in the system.
MR. LALLY: Now, with regard to you mentioned or made some mention earlier in your testimony in regard to evidence storage facilities at your office --
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Can you describe what those are and who, if anyone, has access to those evidence storage areas?
MR. BUKHENIK: Within our office we have two troopers that are designated as evidence officers. Those individuals have access to the secure rooms designated strictly for evidence storage. Those rooms are inventoried and kept under not just lock and key but also digital access control and alarm systems. They are the only ones that have access to those facilities in addition to our unit commander. But I'll tell you that our unit commander does not access that room without the evidence officers. I, myself, even as a supervisor, do not have access to that room.
MR. LALLY: So you don't have access to that evidence room; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Does Trooper Proctor? Is he one of those evidence officers? Did he have access to that room?
MR. BUKHENIK: He does not.
MR. LALLY: As far as at the time in January of 2022, who were the troopers within your office who did have access to that room?
MR. BUKHENIK: In January 2022, that would be Trooper Jeff Kotkowski and Trooper David DiCicco.
MR. LALLY: And that would be in addition to Lieutenant Tully; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Detective Lieutenant Tully I believe has access to it, but I cannot speak to that. I just believe that he does as a unit commander to facilitate any next assignment.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to any items that you were physically present for that were taken into custody or were taken into evidence, including that clothing from the hospital on January 29th and any other items throughout the course of this investigation, when they were taped and sealed, what were each of those -- what happened with each of those items once they were taken back to your office?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. BUKHENIK: Each item that was sealed, it was processed in. It was logged in. And then it was stored after processing. It was stored in the evidence room.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Now, returning back to the Good Samaritan Hospital, within that hospital room, you made mention that you secured items and that you made observations of Mr. O'Keefe; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And can you describe for the jury as far as Mr. O'Keefe's body, what were those observations that you made?
MR. BUKHENIK: Mr. O'Keefe's body was laying on his back. The observations I made were of bruising to the eyelids of his face. Based on my experience and having cases with head trauma, I can tell you that during subdural hematoma, the --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll sustain the objection. Build a foundation if you can, Mr. Lally.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Trooper, over the course of your work with this unit in particular, if you know, about how many homicide or -- let me step into it this way: As far as your work within this unit as far as it's concerned, what, if any, jurisdiction does the state police detective unit of the district attorney's office have with reference to not only homicide but death investigations within Norfolk County?
MR. BUKHENIK: By statute, Chapter 38, Section 4, in each county, the district attorney's office is provided jurisdiction over all death investigations. As a result, the law enforcement entities that are assigned to that district attorney perform the investigations. In Norfolk County, those individuals are members of the Massachusetts State Police assigned to the state police detective unit within our office.
MR. LALLY: And so as far as death investigations, what exactly or what type of investigations would that encompass?
MR. BUKHENIK: Death investigations that we have jurisdiction over are all unattended deaths. Unattended deaths means that a physician, a doctor, is not overseeing the individual that passes. Those deaths would be suicides, homicides, overdose-type deaths, natural deaths, accidental deaths and so forth. Any type of death that is not overseen by a doctor at a medical facility or in a hospice-type situation.
MR. LALLY: So as a result of your assignment to this unit and that sort of exclusivity of jurisdiction over unattended deaths within Norfolk County, if you know, approximately how many death investigations have you been a part of over the course of your work with the state police detective unit?
MR. BUKHENIK: Over the last nine years, I would venture to say it was over 500 death investigations that I was a part of.
MR. LALLY: And, Sergeant, over the course of your involvement within those investigations, if you know, how many of those investigations involved some indication or some type of head trauma?
MR. BUKHENIK: Scores. Scores of investigations that involve some sort of head trauma.
MR. LALLY: And, through the course of your investigations in those cases that have involved scores of head trauma, have you been privy to information as far as medical findings, autopsy reports, things of that nature in relation to those prior investigations?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir. I have been.
MR. LALLY: Now, with regard to your observations of Mr. O'Keefe with regard to his eyelids, what, if any, observations did you make and what, if any -- well, let me start just with the physical observations. What, if any, physical observations did you make of Mr. O'Keefe's face and body in general?
MR. BUKHENIK: His face, I observed the swelling and the discoloration being produced through the blood pooling in the eyelids.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. So just your observations. There was swelling and discoloration.
MR. JACKSON: Move to strike the last part.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll strike the remainder of what you said.
MR. BUKHENIK: I also observed a cut to his nostril and an eyelid which was very small in size, which would have been produced by a --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: So we will leave it at that. Next question, Mr. Lally.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Based on your training and experience, what, if any, conclusions or what, if any, opinions did you have in regard to the swelling around the eyes?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll see you at sidebar.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE CANNONE: So he can't give medical testimony. He can say what he's observed here and he has observed in other instances, but he can't say what this was caused by based on his experience.
MR. LALLY: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: That is the nature of the objection?
MR. JACKSON: It is.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Understood.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
MR. LALLY: May I proceed, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: So, Sergeant Bukhenik, with reference to your prior death investigations, have you had occasion to make observations of bodies that there was a later determination of some sort of subdural hemorrhage?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that. Have you made those observations? Have you been part of those investigations?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, Your Honor.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And what you observed in regard to Mr. O'Keefe, was that consistent or inconsistent with what you had observed on those prior investigations?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: That I'll allow.
MR. BUKHENIK: It was consistent.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Now, in addition to the injuries that you observed to Mr. O'Keefe's face, what, if any, injuries did you observe to his extremities?
MR. BUKHENIK: His extremities produced abrasions to his upper forearm and lower biceps area on his right arm.
MR. LALLY: Just as you use that term -- I'm not asking you for any sort of medical definition. But, as far as you use that term "abrasions," what do you understand that term to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: I understand that term to be an injury sustained through blunt force trauma or friction to the epidermis of the skin where a crushing of the vascular system occurs and produces that type of sign on the skin.
MR. LALLY: And, from your observations of the injuries to Mr. O'Keefe's arm, which arm was this again?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was his right arm.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as your observation to those injuries to his right arm, what, if any -- as far as the consistency of those injuries, what, if anything, did you note or observe in reference to those?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Consistency with what?
MR. LALLY: Let me rephrase it.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: How were the abrasions that you're describing positioned in relation to each other?
MR. BUKHENIK: Each abrasion appeared to me to be linear and concentrated in a specific location on the arm. It didn't go any further north of a point and did not go any further south of a point. So it was concentrated in the elbow, a few inches below the elbow, a few inches above the elbow on the right arm.
MR. LALLY: Now, while you were at the Good Samaritan Hospital, did you endeavor to speak with Ms. Read?
MR. BUKHENIK: We did attempt to, yes.
MR. LALLY: And was she present at the hospital at that time?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, she was not.
MR. LALLY: And at some point subsequent to that, did you receive or what, if any, information did you receive as to her whereabouts?
MR. BUKHENIK: We were made aware that she was located at 345 Country Hill Drive in Dighton at her parents' home.
MR. LALLY: And where did you go from the Good Samaritan Hospital once you left there?
MR. BUKHENIK: We proceeded to that location.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, with reference to the items of clothing that you recovered from the Good Samaritan of Mr. O'Keefe's, do you have those items of clothing with you here today in court?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would ask that the witness be allowed to retrieve those items and display those items.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Are they in the courtroom?
MR. LALLY: I believe so, yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Yes.
MR. LALLY: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. How many items are there?
MR. LALLY: Four, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Jurors, if we go a little past one, my intention would be to still just take a half hour lunch today and come back. So I'd rather just go through this if we could.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant, presenting you with this item, do you recognize that?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize that to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: The sweatshirt from the hospital room where Mr. O'Keefe was located.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, the Commonwealth would seek to introduce and admit that as the next exhibit.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Any objection, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to see what's in the bag before I would object. But on principle, no.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So you have received photos of all of this, right?
MR. JACKSON: I assume what's in the bag is what's been photographed. But, until I see it, I won't know.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So let's go ahead and open it.
MR. LALLY: With the Court's permission?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
MR. LALLY: Mr. Lally, why don't you put that back in.
(Whereupon, bag containing sweatshirt was entered and marked Exhibit No. 437 in Evidence.)
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 437, Your Honor.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Handing you another item, sir, do you recognize that item?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize that to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: It says it's one orange tee shirt.
MR. LALLY: And, Your Honor, with the Court's permission, if the witness could remove that item and display it for the jury, as well?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
COURT CLERK: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Whereupon, bag containing tee shirt was entered and marked Exhibit 438 in Evidence.)
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 438.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: I hand you another item, sir. Do you recognize that?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. It's the right sneaker recovered from the hospital.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, if the witness could remove that item from the bag and display it for the jury?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may we approach briefly?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
MR. JACKSON: My issue, now that we've started to go through this, is this officer did not bag these items. His name is not on the items. His handwriting is not on the items. And some of the items, for instance, the orange tee shirt -- why I'm confused, why it's confusing, that's not the bag that orange shirt came in. That's been completely changed. That orange shirt and the gray shirt were bagged together, and that's the only evidence I've got. I've got a bag that says, orange shirt and gray tee shirt. Reverse that. Orange tee shirt and gray sweatshirt bagged together by Proctor. And now we've got other bags, and I don't know who -- I can't see that far. I don't know who bagged these, if there was --
JUDGE CANNONE: What do you say?
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, as far as when the items were initially bagged, this witness was present for when that occurred. This witness was also present when counsel was present at our office when counsel came into view these items and they were all --
MR. JACKSON: No. He was not there.
MR. LALLY: He was.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead.
MR. LALLY: Yes, he was.
JUDGE CANNONE: Finish your --
MR. LALLY: And these items were bagged as they are now at that time, as well. So I don't know what the surprise is.
MR. JACKSON: Well, I didn't see anything, bag to back up. I was at the office to look at the clothing. They were cut open and placed back in the same bags that they were cut open from. They weren't changed. The bags weren't changed. This is the first time I've ever seen Bukhenik in person in my life. And, if he was in the office -- he may have been in the office. He was not in that room.
MR. LALLY: He was in that room.
MR. JACKSON: Tully was in the room.
MR. LALLY: Tully was in the room. Chris Moore was in the room. Sergeant Bukhenik was in the room. Sergeant Bukhenik left at some point when the items were taken out because he accompany Ms. Gaffney and Trooper Guarino for the -- but he was both present at the Foxboro barracks when we were there with the vehicle, and he was present in the conference room, in the office, when all of those items were taken out of the bags. And he wrote a report in regard to that.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. My issue is -- I'm not discounting that. There were a lot of people in the room and I don't discount Mr. Lally's memory. Mine may be faulty. I don't know where the original bag is that Mr. Lally showed yesterday with a different witness. It's not that bag. That is my issue, is how did this get rebagged. I mean, the bags are important in this case but some cases they're not. In this case, they are.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. You're not disputing this is the orange tee shirt?
MR. JACKSON: No.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So let's put this in and then we can figure out after how you go about it.
MR. JACKSON: This is a chain-of-custody issue.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. This won't go into evidence at this point. It may well be that you have to do it through cross.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Okay. I just wanted to note it. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. You may continue, Sergeant. All right. Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir. If you could return that to the bag, please.
MR. LALLY: The Commonwealth seeks to introduce and admit as the next exhibit, Your Honor
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
(Whereupon, bag containing sneaker was entered and marked Exhibit No. 439 in Evidence.)
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 439, Your Honor.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I guess I should have said "no objection" with what we discussed at sidebar.
JUDGE CANNONE: I understand.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach the witness stand?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: One last item from that set. Do you recognize that?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. It is a bag containing blue jeans, black belt and black boxer shorts.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, may the witness remove just the jeans and the belt from the bag?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Sir. You can return that to the bag, sir.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, the Commonwealth would seek to introduce and admit as the next exhibit.
MR. JACKSON: No objection, Your Honor.
COURT REPORTER: Is it just the jeans and the belt or the third item, as well?
JUDGE CANNONE: So are you not displaying the third item but it's going into evidence or is it just the jeans and the belt going into evidence?
MR. LALLY: Just the jeans and the belt into evidence, Your Honor, with the Court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: So we can mark the bag and we will remove the third item.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
(Whereupon, bag containing jeans and belt was entered and marked Exhibit No. 440 in Evidence.)
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 440, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So, Sergeant, you'll be with us this afternoon. Why don't we take our luncheon recess. It is only going to be about a half an hour.
MR. BUKHENIK: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So, folks, we'll see you back here let's say no later than 1:40. Okay?
(Whereupon, the jury is escorted from the courtroom and the luncheon recess is taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(Court resumes.)
(Defendant present. Jury present.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may we approach just briefly?
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, this is a question in reference to those photos.
JUDGE CANNONE: Are you putting them in right now?
MR. LALLY: I can wait if the Court wants me to, but I --
COURT REPORTER: I'm having trouble.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Did you hear that?
COURT REPORTER: No.
JUDGE CANNONE: Would you repeat yourself?
MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor. I don't have to put them in right now but that was my intention is to just clean up and leave from the hospital, basically.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So I just need like a minute to -- I am going to give a gruesome photograph instruction. I just need a minute for that.
MR. LALLY: Oh, sure.
JUDGE CANNONE: You can start laying the foundation, I guess.
MR. LALLY: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: The other thing is on the statement, the recording from the Milton barracks, you sent around a link as to what we had talked about before.
MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: So in order for me to give an instruction on that, I need to know -- I thought we were keeping out the fact that she was in custody. It was just that she was at the Milton Barracks.
MR. LALLY: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: So if she's not in custody, they don't have to give her Miranda warnings.
MR. JACKSON: Right.
JUDGE CANNONE: So I don't then intend to draw attention to the fact that she is there by saying she needs to be given Miranda warnings.
MR. JACKSON: I totally agree.
JUDGE CANNONE: The statement, itself, obviously, still needs to be voluntary.
MR. JACKSON: Right.
JUDGE CANNONE: I just won't mention the part about Miranda warnings if you tell me that you don't want me to.
MR. JACKSON: That's a good catch, and I do not want you to.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So you can lay the foundation on that. It will take me a minute or two to find the instruction. Okay. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
JUDGE CANNONE: You can go ahead, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant Bukhenik, those items as far as the clothing items that you displayed for the jury prior to the recess, those were the same clothing items that you recovered from the hospital room of the Good Samaritan on January 29th; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: Now, you had mentioned earlier in your testimony that those items had been placed into one bag initially. What, if anything, happened with those items as far as their keeping or their bagging once you got back to the office or to the evidence room?
MR. BUKHENIK: Due to the condition of those items after they arrived at the office, the items were laid out on butcher's paper that we utilize for evidence viewing and allowed to dry naturally because they were soaking wet.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as when they were done with that sort of drying process, how were they packaged from there?
MR. BUKHENIK: They were packaged in the bags, sealed up and stored for transport and processing.
MR. LALLY: And so those would be bags individual for each clothing item; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Each item the way that it was packaged, the pants with the belt and the boxers and so on and so forth, with the sweatshirt and the sneakers.
MR. LALLY: And we'll get to this a little bit more ina moment, but at some point there were pieces of plastic, red and clear plastic, that were recovered by you and other troopers from Fairview Road; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: At any point in time, were pieces of clear and red plastic that were recovered from 34 Fairview Road ever placed in the same evidence bag as any piece of clothing that you recovered from Good Samaritan?
MR. BUKHENIK: No. Absolutely not.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to the hospital at Good Samaritan, in addition to yourself and Trooper Proctor, were there other members of the state police or other units of the state police that arrived at the hospital at some point?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir. Lieutenant Mello came to the hospital to document the victim and the clothing. He's assigned to the state police crime scene services section.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the crime scene services section or CSSS, what, if any, role did they have with relation to your investigation in this case or your investigations in general as far as documentation is concerned?
MR. BUKHENIK: Crime scene services section assists us in documenting scenes through video and photographs. They also assist in collecting latent prints and fingerprints. They assist in collecting impressions, like foot impressions in mud or soil and those types of methods.
MR. LALLY: Now, there are a number of different troopers that are assigned to that particular unit; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as over the course of this investigation, how many occasions approximately were there that a member of the crime scene services section responded to or memorialize or photograph different scenes or different areas throughout the course of your investigation in this case?
MR. BUKHENIK: Just off the top of my head, there would be four, five, maybe six instances where a trooper ora sergeant from crime scene services responded to the scene to assist us in this investigation.
MR. LALLY: Now, at any point in time over the course of the investigation when crime scene services troopers responded to document anything, was it ever the same trooper more than once?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, it was not.
MR. LALLY: And so with regard to January 29th back at the Good Samaritan Hospital, there were -- then Sergeant Mello arrived to document or photograph Mr. O'Keefe, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Mr. Lally, do you want me to give my instruction now or not?
MR. LALLY: In just about 30 seconds or so, Your Honor.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And so, Sergeant Bukhenik, I've just placed three photographs before you. Do you recognize what's depicted in those three photographs?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize those to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is Mr. John O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: And what's contained within those photographs, is that a fair and accurate portrayal of what you saw of Mr. O'Keefe's body at the Good Samaritan Hospital on January 29th?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it is.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach again?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts would seek to introduce as the next exhibits.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. There is no objection, right?
MR. JACKSON: There is none.
JUDGE CANNONE: So, folks, the Commonwealth is introducing into evidence through this witness certain photographs that are not pleasant and may be considered graphic photos. Sometimes evidence is presented that creates an emotional reaction in jurors. For example, it's natural and understandable when you hear about a person who is injured in some serious way or suffered in some way or who has passed away. But, as jurors, you have taken an oath to follow the law, and I instruct you that you must separate any emotional reaction on your part from the information on value and weight of the evidence. You must not be influenced in any way by the nature of some of the testimony and you must find the facts in this case based only on the evidence. You can't find facts or base your decision on sympathy, anger, passion or prejudice or pity for or against either side in this case. Rather, your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and my instructions on the law. All right. With that, Mr. Lally, those photos will be in evidence.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
(Whereupon, photographs were entered and marked Exhibits No. 441 through 443 in Evidence.)
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, may I publish just briefly with respect to the photographs?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
COURT REPORTER: Exhibits 441 through 443.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if I could have Photograph 2866.
MR. LALLY: And, Sergeant, directing your attention to the scene, what's displayed on there now has been marked as Exhibit No. 441. Do you recognize that?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: Using the laser pointer on the desk before you, if you could draw the jury's attention to what, if anything, of significance you observed in this particular photograph of Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. BUKHENIK: I observed the swelling of the eyelids, slight laceration of the nostril and eyelid, the blood pooling on the bed in that depiction of Mr. O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, could I have Photograph 2857?
MR. LALLY: Again, sergeant, do you recognize what's up on the screen and has now been marked as Exhibit 442?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. LALLY: Similar to the prior exhibit, if you could, using the laser pointer, direct the jury's attention to what, if anything, of significance you observe in this photo?
MR. BUKHENIK: I observed the lateral -- excuse me -- parallel lacerations -- excuse me -- abrasions and markings on the skin of Mr. O'Keefe, limited between that point there and that point there (indicating) as I described earlier in my testimony.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if I could have 2859?
MR. LALLY: Again, Sergeant, do you recognize what's up on the screen that has now been marked as Exhibit 443?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you see in this photograph, sir?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's the same abrasions to Mr. O'Keefe's right arm, just further up on the biceps/triceps shoulder area.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, you can take that down.
MR. LALLY: Now, Sergeant, taking you back to January 29th, 2022, after you left the Good Samaritan Hospital, where is it that you went?
MR. BUKHENIK: I went to 325 Country Hill Drive in Dighton.
MR. LALLY: And that was the residence of Ms. Read's parents; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, on your way from the Good Samaritan in Brockton to the residence in Dighton, what, if any, communication did either you or Trooper Proctor have with regard to the Dighton Police?
MR. BUKHENIK: I advised Trooper Proctor to contact Dighton Police dispatch and advise them that we would be responding to the location at 345 Country Hill Drive and seizing a vehicle. And we were requesting uniform patrols to assist us in that mission.
MR. LALLY: And why was that request made of the local P.D.?
MR. BUKHENIK: We were going into their jurisdiction. There was a blizzard going on. We were considerate of the circumstance and wanted to be courteous to the residents and not just show up without any uniform presence. We had never met the Read family. They have never met us. And, with the clothing that we were wearing, it would be difficult for them to see that we were law enforcement.
MR. LALLY: And so as you arrive in that area of the residence in Dighton, where did you position yourselves, and when did you arrive in relation to the marked unit from Dighton?
MR. BUKHENIK: We called them while we were still on the highway and gave them an approximate time of arrival. GPS was not accurate due to the conditions at the time on the roadways. Once we arrived to Dighton, I positioned my vehicle at the top of Country Hill Drive, awaiting a marked uniformed officer from Dighton to meet us there.
MR. LALLY: And, if you know, about how long approximately did it take you to get from Brockton to Dighton on that particular day?
MR. BUKHENIK: From Brockton to Dighton, it took us about 45 to an hour, 45 minutes to an hour, to travel that distance.
MR. LALLY: And, if you know, about what time was it that you arrived at the residence in Dighton?
MR. BUKHENIK: We arrived approximately on the street at 2:30 or so in the afternoon, and we waited for a significant amount of time for the uniform patrol to arrive.
MR. LALLY: And, when the uniform patrol arrived at some point, did you learn the name of at least one of those officers that arrived at the residence with you?
MR. BUKHENIK: At the time, I did, yes.
MR. LALLY: And was that an Officer Barros?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it was.
MR. LALLY: And so when Officer Barros arrived, where did you then proceed with Officer Barros upon his arrival?
MR. BUKHENIK: Well, the road was only plowed the width of one vehicle. So even though he and his partner were in an F-150 or 250 marked police cruiser, we could only travel in a single line. We traveled up to the cul-de- sac, turned around and positioned our vehicles facing back out to the way that we entered the roadway or that street. We parked on the roadway since the driveway was not plowed. And we walked, waded, through the snow to the front door of the residence.
MR. LALLY: When you say “the driveway was not plowed" or you "waded through the snow," can you describe to the jury sort of the condition of the driveway as you made your way from the street to the house?
MR. BUKHENIK: With the blowing winds and the drifting snow, there were locations along our walk to the property with snow varying from knee high to up to my waist. For reference, I'm six-foot-one. So it was quite deep in some locations.
MR. LALLY: And, as you made your way to the home, what, if anything, did you observe in the driveway?
MR. BUKHENIK: As we walked up to the driveway, in front of the garage we observed a large Lexus, black in color, SUV bearing Massachusetts Registration 3GC 684.
MR. LALLY: And, subsequently, did you come to find out whose vehicle that was?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. Once we queried the plate, we learned that the vehicle was registered to the defendant.
MR. LALLY: And, as you are going by this vehicle, what, if any, observations did you make of the vehicle as you were walking past it toward the home?
MR. BUKHENIK: I observed a damaged rear right taillight fixture on the vehicle from my vantage point. I also told Trooper Proctor to approach the vehicle closer and confirm what I was seeing, which he did.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as that damage to the right passenger taillight area, can you describe sort of what it was that you saw during that initial phase?
MR. BUKHENIK: Absolutely. During the initial phase, I observed snow compacted and caked onto portions of the taillight casing. There were pieces missing, and I knew that because the left side taillight was intact.
MR. LALLY: And, as you made your way past the vehicle to the home, at some point are you greeted or do you meet someone in the area of the home?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. Once we walked up to the front door, I rang the doorbell and Mr. Read opened the front door with the storm door, glass storm door, unable to open due to the level of snow on the ground and on the front steps.
MR. LALLY: And so where were you directed to enter the home from?
MR. BUKHENIK: Mr. Robinson directed us to the garage door, at which point it opened up and Trooper Proctor and I entered the garage, where, once again, we were greeted by Mr. Read and invited into the home.
MR. LALLY: And Officer Barros. Where did he remain when you and Trooper Proctor went into the home?
MR. BUKHENIK: He remained outside with the vehicle. During our time in the home, Officer Barros came in and asked us what the plan was and offered to have DPW plow out the driveway because the tow truck was not able to maneuver into the driveway in order to retrieve that vehicle.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as any time that you were on scene or at this residence in Dighton, did you, yourself, or did you observe Trooper Proctor touch that vehicle at any point and in any way while you were there?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. LALLY: And did you observe Officer Barros or any other personnel beyond the tow truck driver touch the vehicle in any way?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the tow truck driver was concerned, did you observe that individual touch anywhere in the rear passenger side area of that vehicle at any time that you were there?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. LALLY: So then you proceed inside the home. And, when you get inside the home, where did you go and who, if anyone, did you speak with?
MR. BUKHENIK: We were directed by Mr. Read to the living room, where the defendant was seated on the couch. She had her laptop on her lap and her phone resting on the right armrest of the couch.
MR. LALLY: Now, in addition to the defendant and her father, who, if anyone, else was present when you talked to Ms. Read?
MR. BUKHENIK: The defendant's mother, Mrs. Read, was also present in the home.
MR. LALLY: And the defendant's mother and the defendant's father, were they present throughout the course of your interview or your discussion with Ms. Read?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, they were.
MR. LALLY: And, at any point in time, did you ask them to leave or anything like that?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to -- can you describe sort of the demeanor or the tone of the conversation that you had with Ms. Read that afternoon?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was polite, courteous. She had just went through a traumatic event. So we were considerate of her losing her boyfriend. And we had a normal tone conversation. We were in the information gathering, fact-finding portion of the investigation. We simply wanted to collect her recollection of events that she remembered.
MR. LALLY: And so throughout the course of this interview, how are you -- are you standing or are you seated or how are you positioned in relation to Ms. Read and how is she positioned in relation to you?
MR. BUKHENIK: She was sitting on the couch. We were standing across the room. I don't recall if there was as coffee table. But, if there was a coffee table, we would be standing on the opposite side of that coffee table, if there was one present. I do not remember if there was one present. But that's the distance approximately from me to the defense table.
MR. LALLY: And, if you could, describe to the jury sort of how did that interview or how did that conversation begin? What was said?
MR. BUKHENIK: First things first, we introduced ourselves and advised the individual we were speaking with who we are, where we work and what we are looking to find out. The defendant was advised that we're looking to get a recollection of the events, what happened, what she observed, what she remembers from the night before and to walk us through the last 24 hours or so of activity.
MR. LALLY: And, prior to --
MR. LALLY: Do I need to give an instruction, Mr. Lally? I'm not sure exactly. Why don't I see counsel at sidebar.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:
JUDGE CANNONE: So they determine ultimately that they are not going to really interview her now?
MR. LALLY: No. They do. They interview her.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So at this point, she is clearly not in custody. We're not asking for Miranda. It's strictly voluntary statements.
MR. LALLY: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't I tell you what I intend to give and then if there is any --
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
JUDGE CANNONE: You're about to hear testimony about statements allegedly made by the defendant allegedly concerning the crimes charged in this case. Before you may even consider any such statement as evidence, the Commonwealth must prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made the statement that she's alleged to have made and that she made it voluntary, freely and rationally. In determining whether any statement made by a defendant was voluntary or not, you may consider all the surrounding circumstances. These include when and where the statement was made, the nature of any conversations with the police or questioning by the police and the defendant's physical and mental condition, including her intelligence, age, education, experience and personality. Your decision does not turn upon any one factor. You must consider the totality of the surrounding circumstances.
MR. JACKSON: The only thing I would ask the Court to add is when you use the example of age, mental capacity, et cetera, is to include a statement about potential for any medication that she might have taken. There is evidence that she was heavily sedated in the hours before this.
JUDGE CANNONE: So that's why I'm talking about mental condition. I'm not going to specifically mention medication.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. That's fine.
JUDGE CANNONE: Other than that, you want me to stay away from Miranda, as we discussed?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: And you're satisfied about just voluntary and the circumstances?
MR. JACKSON: With the noted request that I made, yes, I'm satisfied.
JUDGE CANNONE: We haven't heard anything about that yet.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So I interrupted you, Sergeant, and I am going to instruct you, jurors. Okay? We are about to hear testimony about statements allegedly made by the defendant, Karen Read, allegedly concerning the crimes that are charged in this case. Before you may even consider any such statement as evidence, the Commonwealth must prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made the statement that she's alleged to have made and that she made it voluntarily, freely and rationally. In determining whether any statement made by the defendant was voluntary or not, you may consider all the surrounding circumstances. These include when and where the statement was made, the nature of any conversations with the police or questioning by the police, and the defendant's physical and mental condition, including her intelligence, age, education, experience and personality. Your decision does not turn upon any one factor. You must consider the totality of the surrounding circumstances. T'll instruct you about this again at the end of the case. But for purposes of as you hear the testimony, that's the lens that you sort of have to hear it through. All right. With that, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant Bukhenik, when you began to speak to the defendant prior to any sort of substantive conversation, what, if any, conversation did you have with her about the conversation you were going to have?
MR. BUKHENIK: I just asked her to recount any events and the history between the actions that were taking place.
MR. LALLY: And how did she initially respond to that?
MR. BUKHENIK: She stated that she's willing to answer our questions. She just doesn't want to go into too much detail about what transpired. And, given the circumstances that she had just lived through, I understood and gave her that courtesy.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as that interview or that conversation went, can you describe that conversation or the contents of that conversation to the jury?
MR. BUKHENIK: Absolutely. The conversation was normal tone of voice like I am speaking to you right now. Ms. Read responded in the same tone of voice, answering questions. The content of the conversation began with her saying that, as I stated, she doesn't want to go into too much detail but she was willing to answer our questions. We asked what she was -- what she had for plans, what she had for as far as activity the night before, leading up to Mr. O'Keefe being discovered. She stated that she was in a relationship with Mr. O'Keefe that morning, meaning the 28th of January. She got into a fight with Mr. O'Keefe over what the niece and nephew were being fed for breakfast or what they had for breakfast. She went on to say that she met Mr. O'Keefe at C.F. McCarthy's approximately 9:00 p.m., the night of the 28th of January, 2022. She stated that the gentlemen were drinking, consuming beers, Bud Lights; and she was drinking vodka soda.
Prior to moving on to the bar at Waterfall, the defendant was asked where she parked her vehicle. She told me that she parked her vehicle on Washington Street across the street from C.F. McCarthy's, facing north. So the vehicle was on the side of Waterfall Bar & Grille. We went on through the conversation, the interview, to the Waterfall restaurant, at which point she was asked if she left C.F. McCarthy's with a beverage or a container from that establishment, to which she stated that she did not. She also confirmed that Mr. O'Keefe did not have any injuries on him when she interacted with him at C.F. McCarthy's or the Waterfall. He did not get into any verbal or physical altercations with anyone to have sustained those injuries. She stated that once at the Waterfall, they stayed for approximately an hour, hanging out with acquaintances. Then they left the Waterfall. She drove them to -- after they were invited to a residence, she drove them to a location in Canton, where she dropped Mr. O'Keefe off. She was asked if she saw Mr. O'Keefe walk into the home at 34 Fairview, and she stated she did not. She stated that she made a three-point turn after dropping him off and left. She was asked whether or not Mr. O'Keefe -- excuse me. Let me back up. She was asked how she found out about the damage to her vehicle, to which she stated, quote, "I don't know. It happened last night," end quote.
MR. LALLY: Now, at some point earlier in the interview, what, if any, indication did she give as to who Mr. O'Keefe was with when she arrived at C.F. McCarthy's and sort of how long he had been with those respective people.
MR. BUKHENIK: She indicated that Mr. O'Keefe was with Mr. Camerano, Kurt Roberts, at which point she was asked to provide contact information, meaning phone numbers for those individuals, at which time she picked up the phone on the right armrest of the couch, manipulated the device, entering a passcode and provided that phone number to Trooper Proctor and I.
MR. LALLY: At any point in time in the conversation or the interview you had with her, what, if anything, did the defendant say in regard to why she had not gone into the residence of Fairview Road herself?
MR. BUKHENIK: The defendant stated that she was having stomach issues and did not want to enter the residence.
MR. LALLY: Now, what, if anything, did she tell you about later on that morning of the 29th?
MR. BUKHENIK: She stated that when she woke up, she began looking for Mr. O'Keefe. And, when she found him in the snow, she began CPR on Mr. O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, did she say to you about any observations she made of Mr. O'Keefe later on that morning as far as any injuries to Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. BUKHENIK: The defendant stated that while she was performing CPR, Mr. O'Keefe had sustained injuries and was bleeding from the nose and the mouth.
MR. LALLY: And, if you recall, what, if anything, did she say about Mr. O'Keefe's eyes at that time?
MR. BUKHENIK: The defendant stated that Mr. O'Keefe's were swollen.
MR. LALLY: And is that both eyes; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, as the interview progressed, at some point did you ask questions seeking further details?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: And details about what specifically were you asking?
MR. BUKHENIK: Once we got to the point in time where the defendant told me she did a three-point turn, I asked her to walk through step by step of her operating the vehicle and exactly what she did. Prior to that, I asked her -- excuse me. So she was asked to give us a step-by-step recollection on how she -- what she did in manipulating the vehicle and leaving the scene.
MR. LALLY: And, at that point, was the interview terminated?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it was.
MR. LALLY: Now, once the interview concluded or was terminated, what, if anything, did you do with reference to Ms. Read's phone and the defendant's vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: Once the interview was terminated, I advised Ms. Read that her phone was going to be seized as evidence and her vehicle is going to be seized as evidence, as well.
MR. LALLY: And did you subsequently seize both of those items, sir?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, we did.
MR. LALLY: And, similar to the clothing of Mr. O'Keefe, as far as evidence was concerned, was that packaged and taped and transported back to the office in a similar fashion?
MR. BUKHENIK: The device was. The vehicle was transported via tow truck that was dispatched by Dighton P.D. upon our request.
MR. LALLY: And so when you get back outside of the residence after the conclusion of your interview with the defendant, what, if anything, did you observe going on with regard to the driveway and/or any other vehicles that weren't there when you went into the house?
MR. BUKHENIK: During our interview, I glanced out the window, and I saw flashing amber lights and a tow truck plowing the driveway. So the driveway was plowed, and the tow truck was -- excuse me. The plow truck was plowing the driveway, not the tow truck. And the tow truck was loading the vehicle onto the flatbed.
MR. LALLY: At any point in time when you were outside of the residence, what, if any, observations did you make as far as cameras or anything like that on the exterior of the home?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not see cameras on the exterior of the home at that point in time.
MR. LALLY: Subsequent to that date, did you become aware that there were exterior cameras that record on the exterior of the home in Dighton?
MR. BUKHENIK: Subsequently, yes. We learned that there was video recording of the residence and the driveway.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: I'm showing you a disk. Do you recognize that, sir?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. LALLY: What do you recognize that to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: I recognize it to be Dighton videos as it relates to the location where the interview and the vehicle was seized from.
MR. LALLY: And what's contained on that as far as the video is concerned, is that a fair and accurate portrayal of what you observed as far as the defendant's vehicle being loaded onto a tow truck?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it is.
MR. LALLY: May I approach again, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: The Commonwealth would seek to introduce and admit as the next exhibit.
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
(Whereupon, disk with Dighton videos was entered and marked Exhibit No. 444 in Evidence.)
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 444 so marked.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: And, Your Honor, with the Court's permission, if I could publish those two short clips for the jury?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you click and pause on and then on the video if you could --
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally, you need to keep your voice up.
MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Would you pause right there, please?
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Now, Sergeant Bukhenik, from this particular point of the video, do you recognize the vehicle that has just pulled into the driveway?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: Is that the same driveway that you had walked up from the street to the house in Dighton in that morning?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it is.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the vehicle is concerned, what do you recognize that vehicle to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: That would be the Lexus SUV owned by the defendant bearing Massachusetts Registration 3GC 684.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could press play from there.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could pause right there.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
MR. LALLY: Two individuals just exited that vehicle; is that correct, Sergeant?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And do you recognize who those individuals are as far as who they are and from what part of the vehicle they exited from?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. The passenger side exit was the defendant, and then the driver's side vehicle was Mr. Read.
MR. LALLY: And that would be the defendant's father; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if you could play this to the end, please.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Now, Sergeant, towards the end of that video, did you observe the defendant and her father in any specific area in relation to that vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. I observed the defendant and her father at the rear right taillight, gesturing or signaling towards the effected damaged and missing parts of the taillight.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow just the direction that they are signaling.
MR. JACKSON: Move to strike the remainder.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And, as far as that vehicle's position within the driveway, is that essentially the position you observed it in when Trooper Proctor and Officer Barros were walking up the driveway to the home?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it was.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if I could have the second of those two videos. If you could pause it there, please.
(Whereupon, the video is played and paused.)
MR. LALLY: Again, Sergeant Bukhenik, if you could describe to the jury what you observed of significance within this particular video, please?
MR. BUKHENIK: This video captures the vehicle being moved into position to be loaded up onto the flatbed for transport from the scene.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could play it from there.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Pause right there.
COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that.
MR. LALLY: I just asked her to pause right there.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
JUDGE CANNONE: You really have to keep your voice us.
MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant Bukhenik, from this still image from the video, what, if anything, of significance do you observe in relation to the vehicle at this time as it's being loaded onto the tow truck?
MR. BUKHENIK: The rear taillight is illuminated. You could see a white light coming from that taillight.
MR. LALLY: And, if you could, using that laser pointer you have before you, just direct the jury's attention to the specific area you're talking about?
MR. BUKHENIK: Right there.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could play through to the end.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, you can take that down.
MR. LALLY: Now, Sergeant Bukhenik, as far as when you left the residence in Dighton, where is it that you went?
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you want to turn the lights on, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Yes. My apologies.
MR. BUKHENIK: Once we left the residence in Dighton, we proceeded following the tow truck back to the Canton Police Department.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And was there anywhere else that either you or the tow truck went between Dighton and the Canton Police Department?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, sir.
MR. LALLY: And, when you say "we," it's yourself and Trooper Proctor; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, once you arrived at the Canton Police Department, where did the vehicle go?
MR. BUKHENIK: The vehicle was unloaded and put into a heated sally port located at the Canton Police Department.
MR. LALLY: And, in reference to the Canton Police Department and putting it in the sally port, why was it that it was taken to that location?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's a location that serves as storage fora vehicle that would suffice for the size of the vehicle. The location as it related to the crime that took place and was investigated was in that town. So we utilized their facility. It was also a heated facility to help melt the snow that had been accumulating on the vehicle.
MR. LALLY: And, at some point -- well, as far as at some point subsequent to this, did you learn that there are exterior cameras at the Canton Police Department as well as cameras within the sally port garage area?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And have you reviewed each of those respective cameras prior to your testimony here today?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I have.
MR. LALLY: And may I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant Bukhenik, I'd show you this disk. I'd just ask you to look at that and look up when you're finished.
MR. BUKHENIK: (Witness complies.)
MR. LALLY: Do you recognize that, sir?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize that to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: The Canton Police Department driveway video.
MR. LALLY: And what's contained on that, is that a fair and accurate portrayal of yourself and the tow truck pulling into the Canton Police Department driveway on that afternoon or early evening of January 29th?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it is.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: The Commonwealth seeks to introduce and admit as the next exhibit.
MR. JACKSON: May I have just a moment with counsel?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
(Whereupon, there was a discussion off the record.)
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
(Whereupon, disk with Canton Police Department videos was entered and marked Exhibit No. 445 in Evidence.)
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 445 in Evidence.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, may I publish that video to the jury at this time?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: You can pause there, Ms. Gilman.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And just for reference points in regard to this view of this camera, Sergeant, you're familiar with the Canton Police Station?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I am.
MR. LALLY: And so where is this camera viewed in relation to the Canton Police Department and the sally port garage where the vehicle eventually goes?
MR. BUKHENIK: This camera is capturing the driveway entrance to the Canton Police Department. As viewed from Washington Street, that driveway there is on the left side of the structure. The camera, itself, is pointing towards the entrance of the driveway to the Canton Police Department. As you can see the brake light illuminated in the shot, that is a Canton Police cruiser sitting at the edge of the driveway, right by Washington Street.
MR. LALLY: So for orientation purposes as far as the tow truck and your vehicle, is that coming from the top of the screen to the bottom or the bottom to the top?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's coming from the top left to the bottom right of the screen towards the rear of the building where the sally port is located.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could?
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: If you would pause there, Ms. Gilman.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as what's depicted in this still shot on this video, Sergeant, what, if anything do you observe there?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is the tow truck transporting the defendant's vehicle, arriving at Canton P.D. My vehicle with the trooper inside and me operating are following closely behind as we did the entire way from Dighton all the way to Canton.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could play that to the end?
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the interior of the sally port of the garage, you mentioned that that is a heated area; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the heat within that, do you know how that is produced or how hot it gets in there as far as the time that you spend within there?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not know, but it was a standard garage heating system that blows hot air. As far as temperature, when the doors were open that day, it was freezing cold. It was I believe like 18 degrees with, you know, winds blowing. So inside the garage, inside the sally port with the doors open, it was quite cold. Once the doors shut, the temperature rose above freezing and the snow began to melt off the vehicle.
MR. LALLY: And, from the arrival of that vehicle into the sally port garage area, are you aware or have you reviewed video in reference to that?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Showing you another disk, sir, I'd just ask you to review that and look up when you're finished.
MR. BUKHENIK: (Witness complies.)
MR. LALLY: And do you recognize that, sir?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And does that contain the video that you were just testifying about as far as the arrival of the vehicle at the Canton Police Department sally port garage?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it is.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: The Commonwealth would seek to introduce and admit as the next exhibit.
MR. JACKSON: No objection, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, disk with Canton Police Department sally port video was entered and marked Exhibit No. 446 in Evidence.)
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Now, Sergeant, before we get to that video, if I could just ask, if you know, approximately what time was it that you left Dighton, following that tow truck back to the Canton Police Department?
MR. BUKHENIK: We left Dighton approximately 4:15, 4:20. And we followed the vehicle back to Canton, arriving probably around 5:30 or so, p.m.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, if we could publish that video before the jury?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could just pause there for a moment.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: I direct your attention now to the video up on the screen. Just for orientation purposes again, first of all, do you recognize what's depicted in this video?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize it to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is the sally port two-bay garage at Canton Police Department with the antique Canton cruiser on the bottom of the screen and the open spot for a vehicle in the middle of the screen with the four-wheel drive all-terrain vehicle at the top.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as, again, orientation purposes, the driveway that the jury just witnessed in the prior exhibit, is that to the left of the screen, the right of the screen or something else, if you know?
MR. BUKHENIK: The driveway is to the right of the screen.
MR. LALLY: And this vehicle, the defendant's vehicle, was sort of taken into the garage from the opposite side or to the left of the screen; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could play it.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may we approach briefly?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I don't know the name of this file, but all of us just put our heads together to try and figure what this video is. We do not have this. I hesitate to say we don't have this video. We have not seen this view of this video. We do have sally port video. It's the one from the opposite side.
MR. LALLY: This was separately provided at a later date.
MR. JACKSON: When was this provided?
MR. LALLY: It was provided specifically after Mr. Yannetti, during a pretrial hearing, had mentioned that there was no video and it was grainy. I don't have the exact notice of discovery in front of me, but this was absolutely provided well prior to trial. How long is it?
MR. LALLY: So it's motion activated. So it skips over. I mean, I think it stands probably about 20 minutes. But I think the entirety of the video is probably about eight or nine minutes.
MR. JACKSON: It is eight or nine minutes.
MR. LALLY: I believe it's much shorter than that. I think it's about five and a half minutes or so.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Typically, the jury has asked for like a 3:14 afternoon break on days we go to 4:30. I can give them a break now so you can see it if you want.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah. I desperately need to see it, or we can move past it and give them a break at 3:15 if there is another area that we can cover and make it more --
JUDGE CANNONE: I just feel bad where it's already up there and --
MR. JACKSON: I do, too.
JUDGE CANNONE: We'll take a five-minute -- we will take a 10-minute break now.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you for that.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference was paused.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Jurors, ordinarily, we'd take a short afternoon break on our long days in about a half an hour but I think the better use of our time is to give you a 10-minute break now and then we'll go straight through until 4:00 o'clock. If anybody needs a break at 3:15, just raise your hand.
(Whereupon, the jury is escorted from the courtroom for a brief recess.)
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference continued.)
JUDGE CANNONE: So I need you for just a minute.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
JUDGE CANNONE: So I just asked Mr. McDermott to print out the docket. Oh, that's for you. Take it please. We will print out the docket to find out whatever the hearing date was and when your notice of discovery was.
MR. LALLY: It was right around April 23rd, discovery notice, I believe --
MR. YANNETTI: Is that April 2023 or--
MR. LALLY: "24,
MR. YANNETTI: April 23rd of 2024?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So within the last two months.
MR. YANNETTI: After the start of trial.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Why don't we watch it.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may the witness leave the stand just for a moment?
MR. BUKHENIK: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: We'll see you back here in about 10 minutes.
JUDGE CANNONE: So you want us to watch this now?
MR. JACKSON: If it please the Court, yes. Your Honor, may I get just a little closer?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure. Can we turn out the lights?
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Is that the end of it, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: I believe so, yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is that the end of it, Ms. Gilman?
VIDEO PLAYBACK: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Lights on, please. Thank you. So I have a copy of the printed docket. On 4/24, Paper No. 347 is the Commonwealth's notice of discovery XL. I just asked Mr. McDermott to print it. We will need that. That was before we impaneled. That was the day, I believe, with the long motion in limine. All right. So we'll take a five-minute break. Okay?
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)
(Court resumes.)
(Defendant present. Jury present.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So we are ready to pick right up where we left off?
MR. JACKSON: We're ready. Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: So let's just be clear. The objections are overruled, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Sergeant. We are going to start up again with the video.
MR. BUKHENIK: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: And, Your Honor, for the record, I believe we are picking up where it was paused, which was 5:35:36.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could pause right there.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And, Sergeant, as far as the condition of the vehicle as you observe it in this sort of paused still show of the video, is that a fair and accurate portrayal of the condition as far as the snow or ice or anything you observed on that vehicle when it came into the sally port garage?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it is.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could play it from there?
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could just pause there for a moment as the sergeant is almost falling in the vehicle.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that.
JUDGE CANNONE: Keep your voice up.
MR. LALLY: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant Bukhenik, with reference to any individuals you see in this video, do you recognize any of those individuals?
MR. BUKHENIK: I can recognize Trooper Proctor, myself. Other than that, I don't remember exactly who else was present at this moment in time.
MR. LALLY: Okay. If you could, sir, using the laser pointer before you, just direct the jury's attention to where you observed yourself and where you observed Trooper Proctor.
MR. BUKHENIK: That's Trooper Proctor and myself.
MR. LALLY: At any point in time when you were present with this vehicle in the sally port garage this evening of January 29th, 2022, did either yourself or did you observe Trooper Proctor touch or manipulate in any way the right rear passenger side area of that vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, we did not.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could play it from here.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could pause it there for just one moment.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
MR. LALLY: Sergeant Bukhenik, what you're observing in this video, what you've seen or what you recall from this, what is it that you and Trooper Proctor and some of the other officers are doing now?
MR. BUKHENIK: We are establishing a perimeter around the vehicle with yellow tape in order to prevent or alert and advise anyone in the area to stay away from the vehicle.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could just play it until the end, please.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: You can take that down and, Mr. Officer, we can have the lights back on.
MR. LALLY: Sergeant Bukhenik, are you aware of a warrant that was executed on that vehicle on February 1st of 2022?
MR. BUKHENIK: I am aware.
MR. LALLY: And you, yourself, were not present for that; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was not present for the execution. No, sir.
MR. LALLY: Trooper Proctor was as far as you are aware; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, the next time that you were within the Canton Police Department sally port garage with the vehicle was on February 2nd; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And, on that day, where did the vehicle go from the police station?
MR. BUKHENIK: From the Canton Police Station, I escorted the vehicle to the Milton barracks for safekeeping.
MR. LALLY: And why was it taken from the Canton Police Station on February 2nd to the Milton police barracks or what had occurred in the intervening part between January 29 and February 2nd?
MR. BUKHENIK: The Canton Police Department had recused themselves from interviews and that portion of the investigation. And, now that the vehicle had been processed, we needed to free up the Canton sally port so they can utilize that facility for transporting prisoners to their facility and booking. So we stored the now-processed vehicle back at the Milton barracks in an unheated garage.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, if I could publish just a very brief portion of what's been marked as Exhibit 34, which is the Canton Police Department sally port's garage camera?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, what you have up there, I'm sorry, February 2nd, 2022 at approximately 8:09 a.m. And I'm just going to ask you to play that through until about 8:10:26 or so.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could pause that briefly.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant, just for orientation purposes again, this is another camera from within the same sally port garage; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct. It's the opposite view from what we just viewed in the previous video.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as any of the people within this video, do you recognize any of the individuals in there?
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe that's myself and then another officer. I don't know who that other officer is.
MR. LALLY: And, just again using the laser pointer, direct the jury's attention to where you see yourself.
MR. BUKHENIK: (Indicating).
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the condition of the vehicle from January 29th when you saw it on that day to February 2nd when you saw it on that day, as far as the exterior of the vehicle, what, if anything, was different or what, if anything, did you note or observe?
MR. BUKHENIK: I noted the taillight removed and the evidence collected.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the snow and caked-on ice that you observed on that prior date, is that still present on February 2nd?
MR. BUKHENIK: No. That had melted away.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, again, I'm sorry, just play through that 8:10:26.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Ms. Gilman. And you can take that down. And, Mr. Officer, we can have the lights back on. Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Now, Sergeant Bukhenik, with regard to Mr. O'Keefe's house at One Meadows Avenue in Canton, at some point did you become aware throughout the course of your investigation that there were exterior cameras affixed to that residence, as well?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: And those were Ring cameras; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to the investigation, what, if any, steps were taken in order to secure any of that footage from the exterior of the house from the Ring?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. BUKHENIK: We applied for multiple search warrants.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I'll see you at Sidebar.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE CANNONE: What is the nature of the objection?
MR. JACKSON: This witness -- foundation. This witness did not write the search warrants. This warrant did not analyze the videos. This witness did not look at the videos. He has nothing to do with those videos. Trooper Proctor did all of that.
JUDGE CANNONE: What do you say about that?
MR. LALLY: Sergeant Bukhenik has looked at all of the videos. He supervises Trooper Proctor. All I'm asking in reference to the search warrants is he's aware these search warrants were obtained. He's seen all the videos. He can testify as to how they're kept and how he viewed them just as easily as anybody else.
MR. JACKSON: No, he can't. I've seen the videos, as well, Your Honor. That doesn't give me the foundation to establish how they were recovered. He has to call Trooper Proctor. I know he doesn't want to but he's going to have to.
JUDGE CANNONE: And I know you want him to. But I'm just focusing on what's before me. So let's lay a foundation.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And so, sir, during the course -- well, let me ask you this: As far as this or any other investigation is concerned, how is it that members of your unit sort of work through an investigation or work on a case?
MR. BUKHENIK: We --
MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: No. I'm going to allow it.
MR. BUKHENIK: As a case comes in, we address each case on an individual basis based on the evidence that is presented through testimony and physical evidence that is recovered. That is what guides our investigations, and we then develop leads and process information collected. Sometimes information needs to be collected from third-party holders of data or service providers, at which point to access that data, we apply for search warrants, which --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: So move on from that.
MR. BUKHENIK: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: So you applied for search warrants, but move on.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: So, Sergeant, my question is more geared toward as far as individual personnel within your unit, how is an investigation conducted as far as one trooper does everything or is it a collaborative effort or how is that done?
MR. BUKHENIK: The reason I say "we" is because every investigation takes the entire unit typically to put an effort in to conduct interviews, analyses and so forth. So it is a team effort each and every time. No investigation is a one-man show. That's why we call it a case officer, not a lead investigator, because the case officer organizes the individuals to assign different tasks and collect and organize the data that comes back from the third-party providers and from the interviews that are conducted.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the interviews that are conducted through the course of this or any other investigation, is there ever an interview that's conducted just by one trooper or one person in any investigation that you've done with this unit?
MR. BUKHENIK: No. We conduct interviews with two people whether it's a trooper and a local detective or two troopers assigned to our office, other state police unit without the agency.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the case officer, who was the case officer on this particular investigation?
MR. BUKHENIK: The case officer in this investigation was Trooper Michael Proctor.
MR. LALLY: And Trooper Proctor works under your supervision; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: So as far as a search warrant for the Ring video from One Meadows Avenue, who was it specifically who sat down, put pen to paper and wrote the search warrant?
MR. BUKHENIK: Trooper Proctor was the affiant.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as from that search warrant, are you aware of the materials that were provided by Ring in response to that search warrant?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it.
MR. BUKHENIK: I am aware of it.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And have you reviewed both the material as well as the videos that were provided by Ring in response to that search warrant?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to those videos, specifically, did you observe -- if you know, with respect to those videos, how were they sort of ordered sequentially in the manner in which they were provided as far as date, time, things of that nature?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask it differently, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: So the videos that you received from Ring that you've reviewed, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I did.
MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: I will allow that. So he's reviewed videos from Ring. Next question.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: What, if any, information did they contain as far as date or time?
MR. BUKHENIK: The data provided back from Ring provided videos. There was no date and time on the labeling of the -- the identifier, unique identifier for each video. But it was presented in a sequential order, knowing that the last video presented from the provider was the last video within the scope of our request and the first one being the first in that timeline.
MR. LALLY: And the scope of your request, the scope of the request of the warrant, what time frame are we talking about?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. BUKHENIK: The first warrant we requested from January 24th at midnight through January 30th at midnight.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And, with respect to those videos that were provided, you reviewed each of those; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And, Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would ask to publish certain of those videos for the jury at this time.
JUDGE CANNONE: So these are -- why don't we approach sidebar.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE CANNONE: So are these already in evidence?
MR. LALLY: They are in Exhibit 6, yes.
MR. JACKSON: He has no foundation for these. They are in Exhibit 6 because Trooper Proctor is expected to testify. And, when the foundation for them -- if they're going to be played for the jury -- he wasn't the affiant. He didn't ask for them. All he did was review them. Any one of the jurors could review them. I could pick someone from the audience to review them but they can't come into court and establish the bona fides of the foundation.
JUDGE CANNONE: So it's in evidence and that's one thing. There is some case law in Massachusetts on acknowledging police officers working together. It's not very helpful to defendants. So, yes, you may play that.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if I could have from what's been previously marked as Exhibit 6, first Video 119, and if you could pause there, Ms. Gilman.
(Whereupon, the video is played and paused.)
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to this particular Video No. 119 in Exhibit 6, Sergeant, what, if anything, can you tell the jury as far as the timing of this particular video?
MR. BUKHENIK: Based on the appearance of the driveway, we know that this recording took place prior to the blizzard of January 29th.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as anything that you observed in this video as far as vehicles or people within those vehicles, what, if anything, did you observe within this video?
MR. BUKHENIK: I observed Mr. O'Keefe's car parked in the same location as he typically parked it. And then --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll strike the "as he typically."
MR. BUKHENIK: And then a black SUV parked perpendicularly to Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle adjacent to the entryway to the garage.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could press "play" on that.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could pause it.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: At some point in the course of your viewing of this video or the video surrounding it, were you able to identify the operator of the vehicle, the black SUV?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. That is the defendant operating her black in color SUV bearing Massachusetts Plate 3GC 684.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if you could play it from there.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Now, Sergeant Bukhenik, are you also aware from your review of the Ring videos from One Meadows Ave. of another video depicting the defendant leaving the house sometime shortly after 5:00 a.m. on January 29th?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I am.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if I could, also from Exhibit 6, ask for Video 153.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: If you could just pause that for a moment?
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
MR. LALLY: Now, Sergeant, with reference to this video and the one just previously from 119, where is Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle parked in relation to this video vis-a-vis the other videos?
MR. BUKHENIK: The vehicle is parked in the back corner of the driveway along the fence in the same location as it's parked in the previous video.
MR. LALLY: And, at some point, do you see the defendant's vehicle back out of the garage in the same directionality that it did in the prior video, 119?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, she did.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could press "play."
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: If you would pause that for a second.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the operator of that vehicle, are you able to observe who that operator is within that vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: I observed that vehicle being operated. I cannot identify who that individual is from that shot right there.
MR. LALLY: At any point ina shot from the video that you observed, were you able to recognize the operator of the vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: Not from that shot, no.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to the timing of this vehicle, what time in the morning is this video, if you know?
MR. BUKHENIK: The timing of this video is approximately 5:07 a.m., when the defendant left the home through the garage via her vehicle.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could play through that?
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: If you could pause it right there.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
MR. LALLY: Now, from this particular paused portion of the video, Sergeant, what, if anything, of significance do you observe within the still shot of this portion of the Video 153?
MR. BUKHENIK: The portion of this video in the still shot presented identifies a missing/damaged rear right taillight, exposing the white light coming from the right side of that taillight.
MR. LALLY: And, if you could, using the laser pointer before you, draw the jury's attention to what you're talking about as far as that area of the defendant's vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: (Witness complies.)
MR. LALLY: Now, earlier in that video, did you observe the defendant's vehicle coming close to or coming into contact with Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle, at least from this video, what, if any, damage did you observe to Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: No damage.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the ground area around where Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle is parked, specifically the rear of that vehicle, what, if any, red pieces or anything did you observe on the ground around Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: Nothing was observed.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could press "play."
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, from Exhibit 6, if I could have Video No. 165.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: If you could pause it, please.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.
MR. LALLY: And, Sergeant, have you reviewed this video, as well?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I have.
MR. LALLY: And when, time-wise, in relation to January 29th approximately is this video?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's approximately like 12:30 in the afternoon.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the vehicles in this foreground area from this particular camera shot, do you know whose vehicles those are?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. The vehicle in the top left corner is Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle. The vehicle in the middle left is the defendant's vehicle. And I do not know who the other two vehicles are.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could press "play."
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: If you would pause there just for a moment, Ms. Gilman.
MR. LALLY: And, Sergeant, from the two individuals exiting from that vehicle, do you recognize who those individuals are?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And, if you could, just using the laser pointer, direct the jury's attention to whom you recognize and identify who that person is.
MR. BUKHENIK: That there is the defendant and that there is Mr. Read.
MR. LALLY: Again, Mr. Read being the defendant's father; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if you could press "play."
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you. Ms. Gilman, if you could pull up Video 166 from this same Exhibit 6.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could pause there just for a moment.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
MR. LALLY: Sergeant, do you recognize the person that just exited from that vehicle and behind the defendant's vehicle?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And who do you recognize that to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: It is the defendant's brother.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if you could press "play."
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Ms. Gilman. If I could have from the same Exhibit 6 Video 171.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you. All right, Ms. Gilman. You can take that down and, Mr. Officer, we can have the lights back on.
MR. LALLY: Sergeant, from your review of those videos, at various points you observed the defendant's brother cleaning off the defendant's car, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: At any point in time, did you observe the defendant's brother cleaning off the area of the right rear passenger side's taillight of the defendant's car?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not.
MR. LALLY: Now, Sergeant, turning your attention to February lst of 2022, yourself and a Trooper Connor Keefe -- is that someone you're familiar with?
MR. BUKHENIK: I am.
MR. LALLY: And he works within your unit, as well?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, he does.
MR. LALLY: At some point, did you and Trooper Keefe on that day go to the C.F. McCarthy's establishment?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, we did.
MR. LALLY: And what was the purpose of your visit to C.F. McCarthy's on that day?
MR. BUKHENIK: The purpose of our visit was to retrieve surveillance video during the target time in question that we knew the victim and the defendant had visited the establishment, also any transaction receipts that we could collect from that location.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to retrieve both video as well as transaction receipts from that establishment?
MR. BUKHENIK: We were.
MR. LALLY: I'm sorry. My apologies. Before I get into that, may I approach the witness, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant, I'm showing you a series of 14 photographs or still shots. If you could just look at those and look up when you're finished.
MR. BUKHENIK: (Witness complies.)
MR. LALLY: And do you recognize those, sir?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize those to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: I recognize these to be still photographs of the Ring video that we just watched.
MR. LALLY: And that would be Video 153, the one with the defendant backing out sometime after 5:00 a.m. on January 29th?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: The Commonwealth would seek to introduce and admit as the next exhibit.
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
(Whereupon, photographs were entered and marked Exhibits No. 447 through 460 in Evidence.)
COURT REPORTER: Exhibits 447 through 460, Your Honor.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, may I publish just a couple of these photographs for the jury?
JUDGE CANNONE: You may.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if I could have Photograph No. 30.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant, do you recognize what's up on the screen now as Exhibit 456?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could just move towards the rear of the vehicle. I'm sorry. May I have a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant, what's up on the screen now, if you could direct the jury's attention with that laser pointer to the area of the rear passenger side taillight that you were describing damaged?
MR. BUKHENIK: (Witness complies.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, you can take that down. Mr. Officer, if we can have the lights back up? Thank you, sir.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: So, Sergeant Bukhenik, if I can take you, again, I'm sorry, back on February 1st to C.F. McCarthy's. You secured video and receipts from that establishment on that day?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the video and receipts, were you then able to subsequently review those at some point?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: Now, first starting with respect to the video --
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: I'm showing you two photographs or still shots. I'd just ask you to look at those and look up when you've finished.
MR. BUKHENIK: (Witness complies.)
MR. LALLY: And do you recognize those, sir?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize those to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: Those are still shots of the C.F. McCarthy's surveillance video that we collected from that establishment from the dining room camera angle.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: May I approach again, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: The Commonwealth would seek to introduce and admit as the next two exhibits.
MR. JACKSON: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Whereupon, two photographs were entered and marked Exhibits No. 461 and 462 in Evidence.)
MR. LALLY: And, Your Honor, with the Court's permission, if I could ask that those be published to the jury at this point?
JUDGE CANNONE: You may.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And, Sergeant Bukhenik, do you recognize what's up on the screen?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And, if you could, using the laser pointer, draw the jury's attention to what, if anything, of significance you observe in this still shot from the C.F. McCarthy's video?
MR. BUKHENIK: We observed the victim, Mr. John O'Keefe, here. He appears to be communicating with the defendant here. Mr. Camerano is over here, as well. Mr. Sullivan is down here, as well. Mr. O'Keefe is wearing the gray light two-tone sweatshirt that I held up earlier as well as the jeans (indicating).
MR. LALLY: And the next still shot, Ms. Gilman, please.
MR. LALLY: Similar to this or similar to the previous one, excuse me, Sergeant, do you recognize what's depicted in this still shot here?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. It's, again, the victim on the other side of the defendant, still dressed in the same outfit and the defendant still standing in front of him.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the bar area adjacent to the defendant, what, if anything, of significance do you note there?
MR. BUKHENIK: The bar area is located near the taps, the draft beer taps, at C.F. McCarthy's. So if you were to look at the bar from the street, that is the left side of the bar orientation on the way to the restrooms.
MR. LALLY: And I'm sorry. I should have been more specific. As far as the sort of shelf of the bar immediately adjacent to the defendant's left arm, what, if anything, do you observe there?
MR. BUKHENIK: Here, I observe a cylindrical vase-style cocktail glass on the bar as well as other beer bottles.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, you can take that down. With reference to the C.F. McCarthy's video, Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would ask to publish certain portions of that. It's already been marked as Exhibit 50.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could, from the first video, and if I could ask you to pull it up to about seven minutes and 50 seconds. And, Ms. Gilman, if you could pause just for a moment, I am just going to ask you to play it from 7:50 to about eight minutes and 20 seconds in, but I may ask you to pause it at some point.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could pause there.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant, as far as, again, just for orientation purposes with reference to the entrance and exit, point of ingress and egress of this bar, do you observe that somewhere in this video?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. At the top of the screen there is the front door to C.F. McCarthy's bar. And, as we just viewed, the two gentlemen walking in, they walked in through the front door, heading to the taps area, the draft beer location of the bar.
MR. LALLY: And, if you could, just using the laser pointer, direct the jury's attention to that front door area that you're talking about?
MR. BUKHENIK: The front door area is located right here
(indicating).
MR. LALLY: And, with respect to those two individuals that came in, do you recognize those two individuals?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. That is the victim, Mr. John O'Keefe, dressed in the same outfit as before, and Mr. Camerano.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could play that until about 8:20.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if I could ask you from the same exhibit, the same Exhibit 50, from the third video now, and if I could ask you to go to about six minutes and 10 seconds in. And I am going to ask you to play that until about six minutes and 43 seconds.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: If I could ask you to pause for just a second.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
MR. LALLY: As far as the individuals around Mr. O'Keefe and Mr. Camerano, do you observe or recognize anybody else in the bar area around them at this time?
MR. BUKHENIK: Mr. O'Keefe is sitting next to Mr. Camerano. I believe Mr. Kurt Roberts is there, as well, next to Mr. Camerano.
MR. LALLY: Now, from this time, we are at about 8:51 p.m. or so within the video; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the timestamp on this video, what, if any, information were you provided when you retrieved this video on February 1st in relation to that time and its accuracy to sort of what time was?
MR. BUKHENIK: During a video surveillance extraction, we verify the time and date on the system, and that is to show us how far behind in the past or in the future -- sometimes devices are timestamped in the future. It hasn't happened yet in realtime, but the video is stamped. So what we do is prior to extracting the video, we identify the difference in time between real time and video time. In this case, C.F. McCarthy's video was 12 minutes behind realtime.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if you could play this until about six minutes and 43 seconds.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: If you could pause there briefly, Ms. Gilman.
MR. LALLY: As far as anyone else within the area of the bar in the area of Mr. O'Keefe, Mr. Camerano and Mr. Roberts, who, if anyone, else do you recognize in that area at this point?
MR. BUKHENIK: I recognize the defendant walking in and interacting with the victim, Mr. John O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could? Now, Ms. Gilman, if you could within that same Video 3, I would ask you to go to about 13 minutes and 15 seconds. I am going to ask you to play from here to about 14 minutes and 45 seconds.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Pause there.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
MR. LALLY: Now, from your view of this video, what, if anything, of significance do you observe in this part of the video?
MR. BUKHENIK: In this part of the video, I observe the defendant reaching over and retrieving a cylindrical tall cocktail glass from the bartender.
MR. LALLY: Again, given the understanding that the video is about 12 minutes off as far as the timestamp, the defendant entered about 8:51 p.m. and is receiving this drink about 8:58 p.m.; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And, if you could, Ms. Gilman, play that.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Ms. Gilman. Now, Ms. Gilman, if you could go up to about 32 minutes even in to the same video. I am going to ask you to play that for the next 30 seconds or so until about 32 minutes and 30 seconds.
(Whereupon, the video is played and paused.)
MR. LALLY: And, sergeant, during about that 30 seconds or so, what, if anything, of significance did you observe the defendant to receive at that point?
MR. BUKHENIK: A cylindrical cocktail glass.
MR. LALLY: And so that would be the second drink; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And that's at approximately 9:15; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if you could go forward to about 37 minutes into this same video and if you could play that for about the next minute or so until about 38.
(Whereupon, the video is played and paused.)
MR. LALLY: Now, Sergeant, again, from about that one- minute portion from that video, what, if anything, of significance did you observe the defendant receive and do with any items?
MR. BUKHENIK: She received a shot glass beverage and poured it into the tall cylindrical cocktail glass. And then Mr. John O'Keefe stirred it for her.
MR. LALLY: So that would now be the third drink; correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is correct.
MR. LALLY: And that's about 9:20 p.m.; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if I could direct you to the fourth video, Video No. 4, and ask you to go about 50 seconds into, 5-0, into this video. And I'm going to ask you to play this, Ms. Gilman, from 50 seconds to about 1:30.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Ms. Gilman.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
MR. LALLY: So, Sergeant, from this particular video, what, if anything, of significance did you observe the defendant receiving during this time frame?
MR. BUKHENIK: She receives another shot glass beverage and then places that liquid into her tall cocktail glass and stacks the second shot glass into the first shot glass into the first tall cylindrical cocktail glass she had previously received and consumed.
MR. LALLY: So this would now be the fourth drink; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And, per the video, that's about 9:33 p.m.; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is correct.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, within this same video if I could ask you to go to about 26 minutes and 30 seconds. Ms. Gilman, if you could pause there for just a moment. I am going to ask you to play this until about 27:40.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Ms. Gilman.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
MR. LALLY: During that period, sergeant, what, if anything, of significance did you observe the defendant to receive during that time frame?
MR. BUKHENIK: She received a tall cylindrical cocktail glass.
MR. LALLY: And, in addition to that, what, if anything, else did she receive from the bartender during that time?
MR. BUKHENIK: A shot-glass-size beverage.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, did she do with the shot glass in regard to the larger cylindrical glass?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was placed inside the tall cylindrical cocktail.
MR. LALLY: So that would be drinks five and six; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is correct.
MR. LALLY: And per the timestamp on the bar video, this is now about 9:57 p.m.; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is correct.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if I could direct you to Video No. 5 and if I could ask you to go to about three minutes in and ask you to play that until about 3:30 or so.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Ms. Gilman.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: And if I could ask you to go to about 10 minutes and 30 seconds in. I would ask you to play that for about a minute until about 11:30 or so.
(Whereupon, the video is played and paused.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Ms. Gilman.
MR. LALLY: So, Sergeant, sort of rounder shots during this portion of the video; is that correct?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: What, if anything, of significance did you observe the defendant and/or the group that she was with do in this portion of the video?
MR. BUKHENIK: In this portion of the video, the two gentlemen to the right of the defendant consumed a shot-size beverage.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the shot glass that the defendant received, what, if anything, did you observe her to do with that?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it. Strike that. Just what did you observe.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: What did you observe the defendant to do during that period of the video?
MR. BUKHENIK: Prior to the shots being taken, a shot glass was poured into the cylindrical tall glass.
MR. LALLY: And, again, so that would be drink number seven at that point?
MR. BUKHENIK: That would be drink number six.
MR. LALLY: I'm sorry. So the previous portion was a cylindrical drink and then and then a shot glass? That was five and six; is that correct?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I think that was the testimony, but ask it differently.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: As far as that drink during that portion, is that drink number six or drink number seven, if you know?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: In that form, I'll sustain it.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: At this point in time in the video after watching what you watched, how many drinks has the defendant consumed at this point?
MR. BUKHENIK: At this point, she's consumed or is in possession of --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. BUKHENIK: -- six drinks.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And this is at approximately 10:29 p.m.; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could go to about 20 minutes and 30 seconds in. I'd ask you to play for the next 10 or 20 seconds or so.
(Whereupon, the video is played and paused.)
MR. LALLY: Sergeant, during that portion of the video, what, if anything, did you observe as to the drink the defendant has and how full it is at that point.
MR. BUKHENIK: She has a cylindrical tall cocktail glass in her hand.
MR. LALLY: And can you observe or did you observe how full that glass was?
MR. BUKHENIK: Drink number six is empty or near the bottom, almost empty.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if I could ask you to go to about 22:40 or so for the timestamp, please.
(Whereupon, the video is played and paused.)
MR. LALLY: Now, from this portion of the video, Sergeant, what, if anything do you observe the defendant and Mr. O'Keefe doing in reference to C.F. McCarthy's?
MR. BUKHENIK: Once the defendant got drink number seven, the defendant and Mr. O'Keefe walked out of C.F. McCarthy's, the defendant holding the beverage, tall cylindrical glass, in her hand.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, you can take that down.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sir, I'm showing you a five-page document and ask you to review that document and look up when you're finished.
MR. BUKHENIK: (Witness complies.)
MR. LALLY: And do you recognize that document, sir?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize it to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: I recognize it to be a series of transaction receipts from the tabs at C.F. McCarthy's.
MR. LALLY: And are these the transaction receipts or the tabs that you and Trooper Keefe received from C.F. McCarthy's on February 1st, 2022?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, they are.
MR. LALLY: And, with reference to those receipts or tabs, to whom, if anyone, of significance do those tabs pertain to?
MR. BUKHENIK: The first one for 52.80 was opened under the bar tab Karen A. Read.
MR. LALLY: And is there also a receipt for John O'Keefe?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it is, the transaction through the credit card being a Mastercard for 52.80 was paid by Mr. John J. O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: With reference to the items listed within that particular receipt, what, if any, items of significance do you observe listed on the receipts?
MR. BUKHENIK: Under Karen A. Read's receipt, one Tito's, $10; one Tito's, $10; one Coors Light, $5 --
MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: The Commonwealth would seek to introduce and admit as the next exhibit.
MR. JACKSON: We probably should approach briefly.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE CANNONE: What is your objection?
MR. JACKSON: I just don't want to sound like a complete idiot in front of everybody. I thought these were already presented --
MR. LALLY: The Waterfall.
JUDGE CANNONE: The Waterfall. I've been waiting for these ones.
MR. JACKSON: I knew I was going to sound like an idiot. My main objection is there is no foundation for these. They could have been done in a handoff. He asked for them. He received them. But he doesn't know --
JUDGE CANNONE: Which is why I thought we went through that whole video.
MR. JACKSON: No. I thought -- he can't say that she was drinking Tito's. I don't know that she was drinking Tito's. Maybe.
JUDGE CANNONE: What do you say, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: She, in her interview with this sergeant, indicated that she was drinking vodka and soda.
MR. JACKSON: I'm not even arguing that. I'm trying to establish that if this is going to come in, it needs to come in through a custodian of record, not through the officer. He is not the custodian.
JUDGE CANNONE: But the video came in. So in connection with the video, I'm going to let this in.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: Your objection is noted.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded.)
JUDGE CANNONE: That may be marked.
(Whereupon, C.F. McCarthy's receipts were entered and marked Exhibit 463 in Evidence.)
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 463.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sergeant Bukhenik, on those receipts of C.F. McCarthy's under both Ms. Read's receipt and Mr. O'Keefe's receipt, there was Tito's vodka listed on the receipt, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, also on February 1st, what, if any, other establishments did you go to in the town of Canton?
MR. BUKHENIK: Myself and Trooper Keefe went up the street to the Waterfall Bar & Grille and retrieved transaction receipts and video from there.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the video is concerned from that establishment, have you reviewed that video, as well?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: With regard to the receipts from that establishment, you reviewed those, as well; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: I am showing you four photographs or still shots. If you could review those and look up when you're finished.
MR. BUKHENIK: (Witness complies.)
MR. LALLY: And do you recognize those, sir?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize those to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: Those are still shots from the surveillance video from the Waterfall Bar & Grille on the night of January 29th after midnight and Mr. O'Keefe is depicted in the still shot.
MR. LALLY: And those are both interior as well as exterior camera shots of Mr. O'Keefe's sort of exit from the Waterfall; is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct. Interior of him leaving at 12:11 a.m., which the timestamp on the surveillance video was accurate to realtime. He is holding a beverage, shorter cocktail glass in his right hand as he exits the establishment. He is seen on the exterior camera walking towards Washington Street.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: The Commonwealth would seek to introduce and admit as the next four exhibits.
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Whereupon, photographs were entered and marked Exhibits No. 464 through 467 in Evidence.)
COURT REPORTER: Exhibits 464 through 467, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, if I could ask that these be published for the jury?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if I could just have the first one. My apologies. Ms. Gilman, if I could have the first one. Thank you.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And, Sergeant, do you recognize what's up on the screen which has now been marked as Exhibit 464?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. LALLY: What do you recognize that to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is the still shots presented to me and entered into the exhibit of Mr. O'Keefe walking out of the Waterfall Bar & Grille at 12:11 a.m. on the night of, the early morning hours of January 29th, holding a cocktail glass.
MR. LALLY: And if I could have the second still, Ms. Gilman.
MR. LALLY: And, again, do you recognize what's up on the screen, sir?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And, if you could, using the laser pointer before you, direct the jury's attention to where you observed Mr. O'Keefe and what, if anything, you observed Mr. O'Keefe holding as he exits the Waterfall?
MR. BUKHENIK: Mr. O'Keefe is observed here. He is holding that shorter, fatter cocktail glass as he's walking out of the establishment (indicating).
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if I could have the exterior, just the second one, please.
MR. LALLY: And, again, Sergeant, do you recognize what's up on the screen, which is now marked as Exhibit 467?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And, if you could, using the laser pointer, direct the jury's attention to what, if anything, of significance you observed on this still?
MR. BUKHENIK: This is Mr. O'Keefe walking out of the Waterfall establishment, holding the cocktail glass in his right hand as he walks towards Washington Street.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, you can take that down. Mr. Officer, if we can have the lights. Thank you, sir. Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Sir, I'm showing you what's been previously marked as Exhibit 54. I would just ask you to look at that and look up if you could.
MR. BUKHENIK: (Witness complies.)
MR. LALLY: And do you recognize what's contained in Exhibit 54?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do recognize. Yes.
MR. LALLY: And are those the receipts that you received from the Waterfall when you went there on February 1st?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, they are.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: May I approach again, Your Honor, just to retrieve?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Now, Sir, with reference to the Waterfall in regard to the timestamp on that surveillance video, what, if anything, were you told as far as the accuracy of that timestamp when you retrieved that?
MR. BUKHENIK: That video was confirmed to be accurate in time as in realtime, no discrepancy.
MR. LALLY: And, Your Honor, with the Court's permission, if I could just publish three quick clips from what's been marked as Exhibits 53?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if I could ask from Channel 3, the second video down. If I could ask you to go from the timestamp on the top of the screen to 10:54:25.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: If I could ask you to pause right there.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: So, Sergeant, from that particular portion of the video, what, if anything, of significance did you observe?
MR. BUKHENIK: That portion of the video depicts Mr. John O'Keefe walking in with the defendant, the defendant gesturing to a group of people at the top of the screen and then Mr. O'Keefe walking over and giving a hug to an individual that is part of the group.
MR. LALLY: So from the same Channel 3, Ms. Gilman, if I could have the fourth video down. If I could ask you to go to 11:39:40 and you can pause there.
(Whereupon, the video is paused. And, in about five to 10 seconds or so, I am going to ask, Ms. Gilman, if you could pause it.
MR. LALLY: And I'm going to ask, Sergeant, if you could direct your attention to sort of the top right corner of the screen.
(Whereupon, the video is played.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Ms. Gilman. If you could pause there.
(Whereupon, the video is paused.)
MR. LALLY: From that portion of the video, do you observe the defendant in that portion of the video?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, did you observe her to be doing?
MR. BUKHENIK: She retrieves a drink from the table and appears to consume it.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the drink in the tall cylindrical glass that you observed her walking out of C.F. McCarthy's with, what, if anything, do you observe from the glass that she is taking a sip of from this portion of the video of the Waterfall?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's a shorter, fatter style glass compared to the cylindrical tall style that she walked out of C.F. McCarthy's with.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, you can take that down and, Mr. Officer, if we could have the lights. Thank you, sir.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally, why don't we end for the day. It's been a long day. All right. Sergeant Bukhenik, we'll need you back tomorrow. I'll ask you to just follow the jurors out when they leave. So, jurors, those same reminders. Please do not discuss this case with anyone. Don't do any independent research or investigation into the case. If you happen to see, hear or read anything about the case, please disregard it and let us know. We will see you tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, the jury is escorted from the courtroom and excused for the day.)
JUDGE CANNONE: I will see counsel at sidebar about scheduling, please. Mr. Lally, come to sidebar, please.
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. --
MR. LALLY: My apologies.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's okay. How much longer do you have with him?
MR. LALLY: I'd say about 45 minutes or so.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. How long do you think you will finish tomorrow? It's only until noon. I'm not rushing you. I'm just curious.
MR. JACKSON: No. I understand. I guess that's a little bit of an unknown because I was going to bring this up, and now is as good a time as any. If the Commonwealth is not going to call Trooper Proctor, anda lot of this information is coming out through Trooper Bukhenik, I expect it to come out through Trooper Proctor. If that's not the case, that changes my entire cross-examination of Trooper Bukhenik.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: So I sort of need some clarity. I mean, I've asked the Commonwealth several times. And it shouldn't be -- I don't want to get ambushed and I don't want to have to adjust on the fly. I should have the opportunity, a reasonable opportunity, to deal with the lead case officer who is going to testify in this case in an appropriate way because there is so much that rides on that. So all I'm asking is if Proctor is not going to testify in the Commonwealth's case, then that changes the way I cross-examine Trooper Bukhenik Significantly. If Trooper Proctor is expected to testify, my cross of this officer is probably an hour, maybe less. If it's not, then there is a lot of ground to cover. I could be four hours.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So I don't care how long you take. You can take days. You know as well as I do the ambush is if you're not told a witness is going to testify. Right?
MR. JACKSON: I understand.
JUDGE CANNONE: It's what defense counsel does. You're preparing one way or the other. I'm not asking the Commonwealth whether they are calling him or not. I mean, he's on the witness list. This is a big deal, right?
MR. JACKSON: It's a big deal. Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: So if it were me I'd prepare for both and see how it goes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Fair enough.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm just saying. So I don't care how long you take. If you don't know, you don't
MR. JACKSON: Of June?
JUDGE CANNONE: Of June.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, wow. Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
MR. LALLY: My expectation just as far as -- and, obviously, this could change. But my current expectation is I should be able to rest the case in chief on either the 17th or the 18th.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. And the 19th is a federal holiday.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, it is?
JUDGE CANNONE: It's Juneteenth.
MR. LALLY: Juneteenth.
MR. YANNETTI: I had in my calendar that there was a potential off day on June 11th, which was Tuesday coming up.
JUDGE CANNONE: Oh, is there? I was told that the Commonwealth --
MR. LALLY: I believe there is.
JUDGE CANNONE: -- needs -- something personal to you? You need a day off?
MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. YANNETTI: We are off Tuesday, then.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. We'll be off Tuesday. I have not told the jury that yet.
MR. YANNETTI: Right.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll tell them tomorrow.
MR. YANNETTI: Just while we are on scheduling, Your Honor, I mean, we have gotten the head's up regarding the order of witnesses. After Trooper Bukhenik, there are two minor quick witnesses and Trooper Paul. And then we don't know anybody after that.
JUDGE CANNONE: Well, it sounds like you may not get past Trooper Bukhenik tomorrow.
MR. JACKSON: Maybe not. But we have almost a full week next week and we'd like a head's up as to who is coming after that.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So you'll provide that tomorrow, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So the 11th. I will tell the jurors tomorrow that we won't be in session. Okay. And it was the 26th. Po would be we'd go from 12:00 straight through to 4:00 with a short afternoon break.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
MR. YANNETTI: Right. Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Given what Mr. Lally has just graciously told us about when he expects to wrap this case, that means our witnesses are going to be obviously propped up. I want to make sure that there is absolutely no delay. I'm not sure if this is a court question or if it's a Mr. McDermott question. I don't really know logistically how to set our witnesses in in the building. In other words, if I have five witnesses, I don't know where they go. I don't have an anteroom for them. I'd like just a little clarification so I can start preparing.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. It's something we'll talk about. I have to talk with security about it.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I just wanted to put it on the radar.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So June 21st, that's a definite, right? Did you find out if it's more than a day or a full day? June 21st I have a sentencing that involves -- it's post-Mathis, a very serious case that was tried here twice in the last year. I expect that will be all day on the 21st. That's problematic.
MR. LALLY: I could be wrong on this, but I believe the Court had already told the jury or at least told us that the 11th was off and the 21st was off.
JUDGE CANNONE: I never said the 11th was off. I may have said the 21st was off.
MR. LALLY: At least the 21st. I have it written down.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. I'll check. Did I tell you the 21st?
MR. YANNETTI: I didn't have that in my calendar.
MR. JACKSON: I didn't either.
MR. YANNETTI: I had the 11th as a possible date.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll check, because I know I sent it to security. So I'll check with them.
COURT CLERK: Also, on the 13th, Thursday, the 18th, we are going a full day.
JUDGE CANNONE: The 8th. Every day is a full day from here on in unless we are told otherwise.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Good.
JUDGE CANNONE: I think we said that to the jury last week.
COURT CLERK: Judge, I'm sorry. The 13th.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Yes. Next Thursday will be a full day.
MR. LALLY: That's actually very helpful because I think at that point we'll be with witnesses coming from out of state. So the more stretched out we can get --
MR. YANNETTI: Next week we have four full days, then.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: Right?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And the week after, four full days.
JUDGE CANNONE: No. Three full days because of Juneteenth is a holiday. How long do you think your experts will take?
MR. JACKSON: I think we are going to have in between eight and 10 witnesses, total. One, two, three, four experts.
JUDGE CANNONE: And we need voir dires. We need voir dires of the experts, right?
MR. LALLY: Yes. I anticipate we'll have another motion to exclude at least one of the experts tomorrow. And then, yes, I think we need a voir dire of the remaining ones because I don't know what their testimony is going to be, with the exception, I think, of Mr. Green and Dr. Sheridan. Dr. Van Ee, I have no idea. And the ARCCA person, I really don't know.
MR. JACKSON: There's going to be two from ARCCA and Dr. Van Ee both -- the voir dire, it is what it is. I expect if I could -- excluding an extensive voir dire, I could get our case in chief done and over with I think in four to five days of full testimony. Probably four full days of testimony if there is no extensive voir dire. My goal is to get it done in a week.
JUDGE CANNONE: You've provided a lot of discovery, right?
MR. JACKSON: I provided everything that we have. I can't make up discovery. I mean, I got a report, and everybody in this group knows why I can't provide additional discovery for ARCCA. Everybody knows. They've got what I've got.
JUDGE CANNONE: I haven't. If you can't, that's fine. So not everybody knows, and I make those decisions.
MR. JACKSON: Certainly. Certainly. You're the one who needs to know and I thought you knew. The federal authorities will not allow me to interview or ask for additional information from anybody in their world. So I have nothing. I've got a report. He's got the report. That's it. I'm going to start asking questions on the report. That's it. He can cross on the report. So as many times as he says, I don't know what they're going to testify to, yes, you do, because they are going to testify to the contents of the report, and those are definitely questions I'm going to ask. So I've got clean hands.
JUDGE CANNONE: Who are those individuals? Which names?
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe. Dr. Rentschler.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. All right. We'll see you tomorrow morning.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, the sidebar conference concluded and the Court adjourned.)