Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveMichael Proctor — Cross (Part 1)
372 linesCROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, in the summer of 2022, August 17, specifically, you were sitting at your desk presumably alone at your office at about 10:00 p.m. at night going through my client's personal cell phone, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter fact, you were sitting there texting with your friends and colleagues at Massachusetts State Police about you going through her personal cell phone; is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct, sir.
MR. JACKSON: And that included Trooper DiCicco; is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: DiCicco, yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Fanning, Trooper Bukhenik, Trooper Moore, and Trooper Kotkowski.
MR. PROCTOR: Kotkowski.
MR. JACKSON: Tell me that again.
MR. PROCTOR: Kotkowski.
MR. JACKSON: Kotkowski
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: All the consonants are silent. Fair enough. Trooper Fanning and Trooper Bukhenik are your supervisors?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you were bragging to all five of them that you were going through Karen Read's cell phone at about 9:45 at night?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: No, I wasn't bragging, sir.
MR. JACKSON: How did you refer to Ms. Read in that text exchange when you informed them that you were going through her phone?
MR. PROCTOR: I used regrettable language. I said going through his retarded -- retarded client's phone right now.
MR. JACKSON: You were shown a photograph of my colleague Mr. Yanetti, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Same document --
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I think the Court has the copy that I was going to use --
JUDGE CANNONE: Oh, I thought I gave it back to you.
MR. JACKSON: -- for cross-examination.
MR. JACKSON: You had received a photograph --
MR. JACKSON: Actually, Your Honor, if I could, I would ask that this document be marked as next in order, assuming that the witness verifies its authenticity.
JUDGE CANNONE: So go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recognize this document?
MR. PROCTOR: I do, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Same document that you were shown -- a copy of the same document that you were shown by Mr. Yanetti, correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally.
MR. JACKSON: I’m sorry. I've done that twice.
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Lally.
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Is that a true and accurate reflection of the text messages that you were exchanging with Chris Moore, Jeff Kotkowski, John Fanning, Vito DiCicco, and Yuriy Bukhenik?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I'd ask that this be marked.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Any objection?
MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I'll see you at sidebar. May I have that, please, Trooper Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, Your Honor.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: What's the objection?
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, the objection is as far as all of these communications are concerned, neither I nor counsel know what the entirety of the conversations are other than each one of these conversations seems to have a list of a multitude of text communications that are contained within a specific chain which are clearly not representative of the entirety of what has been provided. So if you're going to then take what someone else selected out as differing text messages, I don't even know if these were all the text communications between these people on that particular date that it's referring to. What I do know is that if there are, you know, 851 text messages, let's say, in a given chain, and we're provided 20, I don't see how that's a fair and accurate portrayal of the text communications between these parties.
JUDGE CANNONE: What is it exactly that you want in?
MR. JACKSON: I want this entire document in. I want the jurors to see the whole document, and I'll refer to specific portions just as Mr. Lally has referred to specific portions.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I would not have let in the photo, but Mr. Lally brought it up. I mean, that doesn't go to bias, bias towards an attorney and bias in the --
MR. JACKSON: No, we don't have any problem with it.
JUDGE CANNONE: -- to the prosecution.
MR. JACKSON: And we don't believe that the bias is against Mr. Yanetti.
JUDGE CANNONE: You just want it in because it's an old picture. It's a flattering picture, Mr. Yanetti.
MR. YANNETTI: Now I can tell that I look very much older than that, so I'm not sure I want it in.
JUDGE CANNONE: This extraction was done by whom?
MR. JACKSON: Defense.
JUDGE CANNONE: And this was all that they gave you?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: So --
MR. JACKSON: Which -- and I've got the exact same documents that Mr. Yanetti just used and he picked and chose those.
MR. YANNETTI: Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Again, I'm not Mr. Yanetti.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. Both of you should be offended. I'm really sorry. I don't know why that's in my head. This is the exact same set of documents that Mr. Lally just used, and picked and chose certain excerpts from to read. The jurors are entitled to see the actual document. There's no hearsay issue. It's been authenticated. It's true and accurate. They can see it in his own writing in terms of an iCloud extraction.
JUDGE CANNONE: It's not his writing. It's his typing.
MR. JACKSON: His typing, his words.
JUDGE CANNONE: So do you intend to do this with all of the path extractions or portions of extractions?
MR. JACKSON: Everything that I have in a packet form, I intend or I have my goal is to mark and put into evidence, and then I'll refer to certain of the communications just as Mr. Lally did. My only difference is I want to show the jurors the actual document.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I'm going to let you do it for this one, and let me -- you won't have time to do more than one today?
MR. JACKSON: No, I'm going to do this one.
JUDGE CANNONE: And let me think about the others. But you do intend on every one of them to put the entire document into evidence?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. And there's about seven, Six, maybe. Maybe less. Five. Something like that.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So I'll hear you on any objection to that. Okay. But why doesn't this go to the weight instead of its admissibility?
MR. LALLY: Well, my other issue just as far as how that's constituted, the word "confidential" I think needs to be blackened out.
JUDGE CANNONE: I agree with that.
MR. JACKSON: I just can't do that.
JUDGE CANNONE: No, I know, but Ms. Little's already done it with --
MR. JACKSON: Confidential.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah.
MR. LALLY: It's on every page.
MR. JACKSON: I thought you meant defense counsel.
JUDGE CANNONE: No, no, you can't do that, but on the top of every page.
MR. JACKSON: We can do that. Certainly, we can do that overnight. It's not a problem.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So --
MR. JACKSON: And I can have Mr. Bates draw it up.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. All right. So your copy's going in or Trooper Proctor's copy’s going in?
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor's copy.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. All right. So we'll mark this over your objection, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Understood.
JUDGE CANNONE: And before the others, we'll readdress this on Wednesday.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Sounds good.
end of sidebar.)
COURT REPORTER: Five-six-seven, Your Honor.
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 567, Text Messages, was marked.)
JUDGE CANNONE: And then I would ask you to give it back to the witness, please.
MR. JACKSON: May I inquire, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, Trooper DiCicco had sent you a photograph of my colleague, Mr. Yanetti, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, because of the technical issue, I'm not going to display on the television. May I display this hard copy briefly?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see that gentleman?
MR. PROCTOR: I do, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Is that the photograph that you received?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that you referred to on direct examination with Mr. Lally receiving a photograph from -- of Mr. Yanetti?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And your response was what?
MR. PROCTOR: "T hate that man. I truly hate that man."
MR. JACKSON: Actually, your response was, "I'm going through his retarded client's phone right now," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, after the picture, sir, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Who's the retarded client?
MR. PROCTOR: I was referring to Ms. Read. Again, unprofessional language.
MR. JACKSON: I'm not asking you for an explanation. I'm asking who you were referring to.
MR. PROCTOR: Ms. Read.
MR. JACKSON: I know you've got an explanation. Who is it you were referring to as retarded?
MR. PROCTOR: Ms. Read.
MR. JACKSON: Karen Read, the woman sitting to my left?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: The subject of your investigation as a professional, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: As an unbiased objective investigator, the person that you were investigating, you referred to your bosses as retarded, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, poor language on my part.
MR. JACKSON: Poor language is one way to put it. Completely offensive is another way to put it, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to sustain that, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: After you refer to my client as retarded, then you decided to make a comment about Mr. Yanetti, her lawyer, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And what did you say about Mr. Yanetti again?
MR. PROCTOR: "T hate that man. I truly hate that man."
MR. JACKSON: "T hate that man. I truly hate him," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't say I dislike him, I disagree with him. You said, "I hate him," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct, sir.
MR. JACKSON: That's a visceral response to someone who's just doing a job, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. You can ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Let me ask it this way. Were you upset or annoyed or pissed off that Karen Read has gotten representation, legal representation to represent her?
MR. PROCTOR: No, not at all. That's her right.
MR. JACKSON: Let me ask you this. In August of 2022, you said you absolutely hate him, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't know if I used absolute. Yeah, I didn't use absolutely, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You used truly, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Truly, yes.
MR. JACKSON: How do you feel about him now? He's sitting right there.
MR. PROCTOR: I still don't care for him, no.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll let it stand.
MR. JACKSON: What did you tell your colleagues you were looking for as you sat at almost 10:00 p.m. at night, on a Wednesday night August 17, 2022, looking through Karen Read's phone?
MR. PROCTOR: I didn't tell them I was looking through anything. They knew I was going through Ms. Read's phone. I provided an inappropriate joke as an update. They knew I was going through location data, text messages, Google searches. But like I had mentioned earlier, I had to stop.
MR. JACKSON: Except, Trooper Proctor, none of that really professional sounding stuff ended up in your comments to your bosses, did it?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, it was a poor joke.
MR. JACKSON: Is that yes or no?
MR. PROCTOR: It did not, no.
MR. JACKSON: It did not?
MR. PROCTOR: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter fact, what did you write after you talked about going through the quote, retarded client's phone?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: "No nudes so far."
MR. JACKSON: "No nudes so far," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you said that to your bosses?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You were looking for naked photographs of Ms. Read on a Wednesday night as you sat in your office at 9:44 p.m., correct?
MR. PROCTOR: No, not correct.
MR. JACKSON: Let me ask you a question. Have you ever looked for naked photos of a male suspect that you were investigating?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't look for naked photos in anyone's phones.
MR. JACKSON: But you said you were looking for nudes of Ms. Read, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Like I said, Mr. Jackson, it was an inappropriate joke.
MR. JACKSON: Sir, this is a citizen. She's a woman. You were supposed to be objectively investigating. Does your text message to your colleagues at the Massachusetts State Police reflect an objective investigation of a citizen?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: You can get part of that question and ask it again.
MR. JACKSON: Do you believe that your text messages were reflective of an objective investigator?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that. Do you believe that, Trooper Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: I believe poor jokes have -- and unprofessional language have no bearing on the integrity and the facts and physical evidence of this case.
MR. JACKSON: It's not that they don't have any bearing on the facts and integrity, it's that they have no place in a professional investigation because it shows bias, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: So I have to sustain that as asked. Go ahead and ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: You weren't so much as objectively investigating Karen Read as objectifying her, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. JACKSON: Isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Rephrase the question, please.
MR. JACKSON: You weren't so much as objectively investigating her as objectifying her in those moments, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, Mr. Jackson, it was a poor choice of words and a joke that I should not have texted out, but from the start of the investigation, we didn't know what we had --
MR. JACKSON: And your, Trooper Proctor, your point in saying, "No nudes so far," to your colleagues at the Massachusetts State Police would suggest that you went looking for nudes and you would update them when you found them, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Incorrect.
MR. JACKSON: Well, let me ask you a question. Did you find any nudes of Karen Read?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, I didn't go through the photos, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did you find any nudes of Karen Read?
MR. PROCTOR: I didn't go through the photos, sir. I came --
MR. JACKSON: So you were unsuccessful in your quest.
MR. PROCTOR: I came across text messages from Ms. Read to another attorney on January 29, so I had to stop looking through her phone.
MR. JACKSON: So you got sidetracked before you could get to the naked pictures of Ms. Read; is that what you're saying?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: To be clear, when you sent those text messages on that group chat, those text messages included as we said or as you said, not one but two of you supervisors, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Were you ever reprimanded for your conduct in sending that text message?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: So that's sustained. Do we need to go to sidebar based on what you told me earlier?
MR. JACKSON: We do not.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So --
MR. JACKSON: I'll ask it a different way.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Did either Trooper Fanning or Trooper Bukhenik dress you down in a responsive text message in that text thread for doing something so abhorrent as looking for nudes or referring to nudes of a female suspect or subject of your investigation; did that ever happen?
MR. PROCTOR: Not that I can recall.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter fact in reference to one of the text messages in this same string, your boss Yuriy Bukhenik actually responded to the photo of Mr. Yanetti, didn't he?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: He did, sir. After you received the photo, that's when you said, "Funny. I'm going through his retarded client's phone," is that right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow this but not too many more.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Is that correct? It's on the top of page 2685?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And Yuriy Bukhenik liked that comment, "Funny. I'm going through his retarded client's phone," didn't he?
MR. PROCTOR: I see he laughed at an image here, sir. I can't tell if he liked that comment, sir.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. A I don't know if it's just because it's faded or -- yeah, my copy is faded.
MR. JACKSON: Top 2685. You can use my copy if that helps.
MR. PROCTOR: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: What do you see on the top of that page?
MR. PROCTOR: That Sergeant Bukhenik liked it.
MR. JACKSON: Liked what?
MR. PROCTOR: The, "I'm going through his retarded client's phone," sir.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I'll take my copy.
MR. PROCTOR: There you go.
MR. JACKSON: So your supervisors at Massachusetts State Police not only didn't ride you for making comments like this, they encouraged it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, this is your direct chain of command, is that right, Yuriy Bukhenik?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did you believe that your conduct was a misuse of your authority and power as you were going through her phone in August of 2022?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: No. I had a warrant signed by a district clerk -- Stoughton District Court clerk to go through Ms. Read's phone. I don't think it was an abuse of power. I had every right to go through that phone.
MR. JACKSON: Did the warrant say anything about looking for nudes of my client?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Did it say anything about that?
MR. PROCTOR: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: So that would be an abuse of the power that was given to you by the Court, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, you'd agree that the hallmark of any good investigation, as you've been taught and others in the Massachusetts State Police have been taught, is that the investigation and the investigator have to be fair. They have to be impartial. Would you agree with that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Meaning that the investigation has to be free of conflicts, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: The investigator has to be free of conflicts, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: The investigation has be free of bias; is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You can't be biased against the person that you're investigating. That would compromise the entire thing, wouldn't it?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Basically, you follow the evidence -- you're supposed to follow the evidence wherever it takes you, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Good or bad, top to bottom, just follow the evidence and report it back. That's how an investigation is supposed to be run, isn't it?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: And these are things that you learned early on at Massachusetts State Police Academy and then in your detective training; isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: It is.
MR. JACKSON: But literally it's part of an oath that you took at the academy that you will, quote, faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all of the duties incumbent on you as a Massachusetts State Police trooper, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You swore that oath.
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. JACKSON: When you start an investigation, everybody in that investigation should be treated exactly the same. Don't you think that's true?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Everybody -- have you ever heard the phrase, "Everybody's a suspect until they're not?"
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: It's especially important early in an investigation before all of the facts are known that the investigator is not compromised by bias or prejudice, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Most important early in the investigation because that's when the most things are up in the air. There's the cloud, the fog of not knowing exactly what the truth is, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: In other words, Trooper Proctor, you don't get to pick a suspect and then try to find evidence to support your choice, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: But in this case, that's exactly what you did, isn't it?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Jackson, why don't we end for today.
MR. JACKSON: This is as good of a place as any.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So, folks, we're off tomorrow. Those same three cautions: Please do not discuss this case with anyone. Don't do any independent research or investigation into this case. If you happen to see, hear, read anything about the case, please disregard it and let us know. We'll see you Wednesday morning. So Wednesday, Thursday, Friday right now, it's anticipated we'll be full days of testimony with short lunch breaks. Okay. Thank you, all.
(Jury out.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Trooper, same thing, you can follow them out.
MR. PROCTOR: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Witness exits.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So one last time at sidebar for scheduling, okay?
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So we're certainly not holding you to anything yet.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, I'm sorry. I was turning the phone on again. Sorry.
JUDGE CANNONE: Not holding you to anything. How long do you think you'll be with him?
MR. JACKSON: Three to four hours.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: My outline is about 80 pages, and that's about what it was with Brian Higgins. That's the best I can estimate.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So that puts us end of day Wednesday, probably.
MR. JACKSON: I think so.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you think we'll finish with him on Wednesday?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you think we'll finish --
MR. JACKSON: I will finish with him on Wednesday.
JUDGE CANNONE: You think we'll finish with him on Wednesday, Mr. Lally, not Mr. Yannetti, Mr. Lally?
MR. YANNETTI: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: If it's four hours, I think, yeah, I'll have plenty of time in the afternoon to move onto other things.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Famous last words, but we'll see. All right. Who do you have after him?
MR. LALLY: We have Lieutenant Tully and then Trooper Paul.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So Lieutenant Tully. How long? Tie up loose ends. There wasn't much independent work done by him, was there?
MR. LALLY: No. So he is present for the SERT search which I'm going to go through quickly, but then there's also the Canton Public Library video as well as the temple video, and that sort of then dovetails into the RTT that he did with the defendant's phone as far as location data and things like that.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Who's doing the cross of Tully? Okay. How long?
MR. JACKSON: Forty-five minutes to an hour.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right.
MR. JACKSON: Focusing mostly on Mr. Tully's --
JUDGE CANNONE: So potentially, we could finish Wednesday afternoon/Thursday morning if you put on Lieutenant Tully?
MR. LALLY: Oh, yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. And then who do you have?
MR. LALLY: So then it would be Mr. Corto --
MR. YANNETTI: Trooper Paul.
JUDGE CANNONE: Trooper Paul.
MR. LALLY: -- from the state lab as well as Trooper Paul.
JUDGE CANNONE: Could I have Trooper Paul's report?
MR. LALLY: Of course.
JUDGE CANNONE: It wasn't introduced to the grand jury because it wasn't finished at the time, right?
MR. LALLY: Right.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I would just like it in advance if at all possible.
MR. LALLY: Sure. I have an extra copy.
JUDGE CANNONE: You have an extra copy here today, that would be great. If not, email it to Mr. McDermott.
MR. LALLY: I can send it --
JUDGE CANNONE: Is there any objection to me having a copy of that report?
MR. JACKSON: Absolutely not.
JUDGE CANNONE: It just makes things more move along more quickly on evidentiary objections.
MR. JACKSON: I understand.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So how long -- I've seen him testify before. It takes a little while, right?
MR. LALLY: It does. This one I don't think is terribly complex, so I think it'll be a little bit quicker than you're probably used to seeing me do with recon. So I would say probably an hour and half to two hours at the most.
JUDGE CANNONE: Who's doing the cross-exam?
MR. JACKSON: I am. An hour.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. All right. So the longest, that would be the end of day Thursday but you're hoping not.
MR. LALLY: So what I'm hoping is if we can finish Lieutenant Tully on Wednesday, what I would probably do is put Mr. Porto, who's the DNA from the state lab, on first.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Just because I think he's a little quicker as opposed to have him sit downstairs while Trooper Paul is on the stand for hours and hours. And then Trooper Paul after that. Oh, I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. Thursday is --
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah, you got your other people.
MR. LALLY: So I might just do all the DNA and then Trooper Paul after.
COURT CLERK: Start with Bode at 9:00.
MR. LALLY: Well, I think -- the problem is I think I need to get Mr. Porto on before we get to Bode because some of that testing comes from what Mr. Porto did at the state lab. And then I also have Sergeant Gallerani because he's the -- does the buccal swabs. But I still think I can get -- if we finish with Lieutenant Tully on Wednesday, I should be able to get Mr. Porto, Sergeant Gallerani, Mr. Bradford, and Ms. Chart done in the morning.
JUDGE CANNONE: I think that's extremely ambitious.
COURT REPORTER: Jimmy, the bags.
MR. LALLY: That would be my goal.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Just try not to be repetitive with Detective Lieutenant Tully.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
JUDGE CANNONE: If there are things people have already seen --
MR. LALLY: No.
JUDGE CANNONE: -- and they're already in evidence, he doesn't have to identify them again.
MR. LALLY: So there are a couple of physical pieces of evidence from the 29th because they're the ones who took them. So it would be Mr. O'Keefe's other shoe and then a couple of pieces of the taillight. I don't need him to take them out of the bag or any of that kind of stuff unless counsel wants to --
JUDGE CANNONE: Do we agree that they're in the bag?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: The shoe I would have to take out of the bag just to match to the other shoe, but the taillight, no.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So hopefully you'll have you doctor here on Friday afternoon. I'm not sure we'll reach her.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: We'll have a better idea Thursday, but we need to get your people on and off, right?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Do you need me for anything?
MR. JACKSON: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. We'll see you Wednesday.
end of sidebar.)
(Court in recess.)