Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveMichael Proctor — Direct
1,623 linesMR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor. The Commonwealth would call Trooper Michael Proctor to the stand. MICHAEL PROCTOR, sworn
MR. PROCTOR: Good morning, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning.
MR. PROCTOR: Good morning, jurors.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Mr. Lally, whenever you're ready.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Good morning, sir.
MR. PROCTOR: Good morning, sir.
MR. LALLY: Could you please state your name and spell your last name for the jury?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, Trooper Michael Proctor, P-R-O-C-T-O-R.
MR. LALLY: And how are you employed, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: I am currently assigned to the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office in the homicide unit within the Massachusetts State Police.
MR. LALLY: And how long --
JUDGE CANNONE: Trooper, I'm going to ask you to keep your voice up loud, okay?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, ma'am.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: And, sir, if you want that microphone in front of you is adjustable so however close or far away you want it? How long have you been a trooper with the state police?
MR. PROCTOR: For over ten years. It'll be five years in September with the homicide unit.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to your work with the homicide unit with the detective unit in the district attorney's office what, if any, specialized training did you receive in regard to your work within that unit?
MR. PROCTOR: I've attended several homicide schools. I've also been certified in Cellebrite software programming. I've also, in addition to homicide investigations, have worked in the -- within the narcotics unit on several different investigations there as well.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to your work with the detective units as far as you have sort of an on-call system?
MR. PROCTOR: We do.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury sort of how that works or how those specific days for your on-call duties are assigned?
MR. PROCTOR: Sure. So a sergeant, Sergeant Bukhenik, usually sets the on-call rotation. It's at random. And your on-call is from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. Any unattended death, homicide, suicide, overdose, things of that nature that comes in during that time frame, you own it. That's your call.
MR. LALLY: Now, were you working in that capacity with the detective units on January 29, 2022?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And at some point in the morning did you receive a call in regards to a situation in the town of Canton?
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, was that -- when did you first receive that call, Trooper?
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Bukhenik called me approximately 6:48 that Saturday morning advised that Canton PD had a male party that was discovered in the snow outside of a residence, and he wasn't sure what had happened. He -- it was originally given to me as a possible medical Situation.
MR. LALLY: And based on that initial call and that initial information that you received, what, if anything, did you do?
MR. PROCTOR: At that point I knew I needed to gather further information so I contacted Detective Lank from Canton Police Department to see exactly what transpired in the morning. He had informed me that a male party had been transported to Good Samaritan Hospital with some injuries. Detective Lank didn't have much more information, so I knew I needed to contact the paramedic at the hospital, the individuals treating Mr. O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: Let me get to that if I could, I'm sorry. As far as Detective Sergeant Lank was concerned, was that someone that you called on your own, or how did you get his information or why did you call him specifically?
MR. PROCTOR: I knew he was on scene so I called Detective Lank.
MR. LALLY: So that was some information that you had received at some point earlier and then you contacted the victim -- excuse me -- Detective Sergeant Lank?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And following that, you reached out to who? I'm sorry.
MR. PROCTOR: Firefighter Anthony Flumatti.
MR. LALLY: And with reference to that conversation what, if anything, did you learn from that?
MR. PROCTOR: Firefighter Flumatti informed me that --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it. A Firefighter Flumatti informed me that Mr. O'Keefe had some injuries to his right arm, some abrasions to his right arm, some injuries to his eyes, a cut to the nose area, and he put a ten percent chance of survival for Mr. O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: And based on that information, who did you call next?
MR. PROCTOR: I contacted Sergeant Bukhenik, advised him that this sounds like it's more than a medical situation.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, decision did you and Sergeant Bukhenik come to with regard to what to do or where to go or what the next step should be.
MR. PROCTOR: So there was a couple of different steps. Number one, it was blizzard conditions, and we operate, you know, Ford Fusions or Chevy Malibus, so we got authorization to use our personal vehicles that are four-wheel-drive and to meet at Canton PD and to speak with the responding officers.
MR. LALLY: And about what time was it that you and Sergeant Bukhenik arrived at the Canton Police Department?
MR. PROCTOR: It was approximately 10:00 a.m. that morning.
MR. LALLY: And so, Trooper Proctor, if I could, whereabouts were you at about 8:22 in the morning?
MR. PROCTOR: Home.
MR. LALLY: Had you shoveled out your driveway at that time?
MR. PROCTOR: Not yet.
MR. LALLY: Had you cleaned off your car at that time?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: So you arrived at the Canton police station about 10:00 a.m. or so. When was it that you arrived in relation to Sergeant Bukhenik, if you know?
MR. PROCTOR: At Canton PD?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall if Sergeant Bukhenik arrived first or myself.
MR. LALLY: But suffice it to say, at some time you both arrived around 10:00 a.m.; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And where did you go at the Canton police when you arrived there?
MR. PROCTOR: We spoke with Sergeant Sean Goode.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, did you learn from Sergeant Goode?
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Goode informed us that while he was on scene, he identified Kerry Roberts, Jennifer McCabe, Karen Read. He also informed us that Jennifer McCabe was out earlier in the night at a Waterfall bar in Canton with some individuals and that she was the one who called 911 when they found Mr. O'Keefe in the snow that morning. A Now with regard to the parties that you just mentioned, prior to January 29, 2022, had you ever met or were you aware of either Jennifer McCabe or Kerry Roberts or Karen Read or John O'Keefe? A I never met any of them.
MR. LALLY: And at some point subsequent, did you have occasion to meet and speak with Ms. Read?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And do you see Ms. Read in the courtroom today?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. LALLY: Just for clarification purposes, if you could identify as to where she's seated, or an article of clothing that she's wearing.
MR. PROCTOR: She's seated between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Yanetti wearing a pinstriped sportscoat.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, I'd just ask the record reflect identification of the defendant. A Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, after you speak with Sergeant Goode, did you speak with anybody else at the Canton Police Station?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: And where did yourself and Sergeant Bukhenik go from there?
MR. PROCTOR: We then traveled to the home of Matthew and Jennifer McCabe.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to when I say you and Sergeant Bukhenik, at how long period of time was it that you were with Sergeant Bukhenik on that date of January 29?
MR. PROCTOR: From 10:00 a.m. approximately we met at Canton Police Department until when we returned to the Canton Police Department that afternoon around 5:30 in the afternoon. So all day and we had a debrief meeting with just the troopers in my office at Canton PD. So at least from 10:00 to 6:00, 7:00 because we also went back to the office with some evidence.
MR. LALLY: And so from that entire time from 10:00 in the morning until later on in the night other than maybe short drives in individual cars, were you essentially with Sergeant Bukhenik that entire day?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. We used Sergeant Bukhenik's pickup truck that entire day. I left my personal vehicle at the police department and I rode with Sergeant Bukhenik all day and into the evening.
MR. LALLY: Now, from the Canton police station, where did you and Sergeant Bukhenik go?
MR. PROCTOR: The McCabe's house in Canton.
MR. LALLY: And who, if anyone, did you speak with there?
MR. PROCTOR: We spoke with Matthew and Jennifer McCabe as well as Brian Albert.
MR. LALLY: And those interviews that you conducted, were they sort of -- how were they conducted?
MR. PROCTOR: One-on-one. Sergeant Bukhenik and myself kind of rotated out Jennifer, Matthew, and Brian. So first we interviewed Jennifer and then once that was completed, we had her step out, go to a separate room, brought in Matthew, and then the same thing with Brian.
MR. LALLY: And for the balance of the interviews that you conducted, you conducted several interviews over the course of your investigation of this case; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And for those interviews as far as individually done, was that primarily what you did with each of the people that you interviewed over the course of the investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, each interview conducted was either one with Sergeant Bukhenik or another trooper in one-on-one, with the exception of Julie and Chris Albert, I believe were in the same room as us.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to I believe you just answered it, but as far as each of the interviews that you conducted over the course of your investigation, was it at any point in time was there an interview that you conducted just by yourself?
MR. PROCTOR: There was just one.
MR. LALLY: And who was that one that you conducted by yourself?
MR. PROCTOR: That took place just at the grand jury across the street. It was the Currans. I had some difficulty locating them. So when they appeared for grand jury, I interviewed them one-on-one by myself prior to their testimony at grand jury.
MR. LALLY: You had attempted to meet them prior to coming to the grand jury; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And they had not been responsive to that?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: However, they were responsive to the summons, and so you interviewed them before they went into the grand jury, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Okay. Other than those as far as Mr. and Mrs. Curran, every interview that you conducted was in the presence of at least one other trooper?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as you mentioned one name that we hadn't discussed before at the McCabe household, a Brian Albert, prior to January 29, 2022, had you ever met or were you aware or did you know Brian Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: I never met Brian Albert until that interview.
MR. LALLY: Now, following the interviews that you conducted at the McCabe household, where did you go from there?
MR. PROCTOR: After the interviews at the McCabe household, Sergeant Bukhenik and I traveled to Good Samaritan Hospital for two reasons. One, we knew for Ms. Read was there receiving treatment for a Section 12, and two, we wanted to view Mr. O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: And when you arrived at the Good Samaritan Hospital, was the defendant, Ms. Read, still at that facility at that time?
MR. PROCTOR: We had spoke with the security staff at Good Samaritan Hospital. They informed us that Ms. Read was released.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it just as to where you went. A Then Ms. Read was released several hours prior to our arrival.
MR. LALLY: And do you know about what time it was that you arrived, yourself and Sergeant Bukhenik, at the Good Samaritan?
MR. PROCTOR: Maybe approximately one o'clock.
MR. LALLY: And you mentioned there was a second reason, and that was to view Mr. O'Keefe, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And did you have occasion or did you have a chance to view Mr. O'Keefe's body at the Good Samaritan?
MR. PROCTOR: We did.
MR. LALLY: And where was that within the hospital?
MR. PROCTOR: That was in the emergency room.
MR. LALLY: And when you went to where Mr. O'Keefe was, can you describe for the jury what, if any, observations you made of Mr. O'Keefe's body at the time that you observed him?
MR. PROCTOR: The first thing I noticed on Mr. O'Keefe is he had abrasions on his right arm. On the top of his right arm, there was approximately six to eight ranging from his forearm to his lower bicep. There was no injuries underneath that forearm. Both eyes were swollen and black and blue. He had a cut on I believe it was his right nostril, another smaller cut I believe it was on his left eye. Those were the injuries that kind of jumped out to me.
MR. LALLY: At any point in time, did you make any observations of the back of Mr. O'Keefe's head while you were there?
MR. PROCTOR: I did observe blood on the back of the head. I wasn't able to tell if there was any significant trauma to the back of his head.
MR. LALLY: Now, from the Good Samaritan Hospital, yourself and Sergeant Bukhenik, what, if any, items did you secure in evidence from the Good Samaritan Hospital?
MR. PROCTOR: So after we viewed Mr. O'Keefe's body, we observed a pile of clothes in the corner that the hospital staff had cut off Mr. O'Keefe and kind of piled into the corner. The one thing that had jumped out to both of us was one sneaker, and it's fairly common in a motor vehicle pedestrian strike that --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: Move to strike.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll strike the "fairly common". The observations will come in.
MR. LALLY: As far as the clothing that you observed, can you describe the clothing that you observed?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. We observed one black sneaker with the Nike logo, a pair of blue jeans, a belt, boxer shorts, an orange T-shirt, and a two-tone gray light kind of hooded sweatshirt type of material.
MR. LALLY: Now, Trooper Proctor, over the course of your career responding to unattended deaths or death investigations as a member -- as a detective of the unit, how many of those have involved situations where a pedestrian was struck by a motor vehicle?
MR. PROCTOR: While I've been in the unit, maybe three or four, and I've had other experiences on the road.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the other experiences on the road, can you expound upon those as far as how many or over what time period we're talking about?
MR. PROCTOR: It was about six years I spent on the road, so maybe another three or four.
MR. LALLY: And with reference to -- with reference to those pedestrian crashes, what, if anything, had you seen in those prior investigations in regard to sneakers or footwear of pedestrians involved in motor vehicle crashes?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to see you at sidebar on this.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: Your objection.
MR. JACKSON: Relevance. You know, talk about relevance and foundation, both. He's not an expert on motor vehicle pedestrian accidents or incidents, and he can't talk about anecdotal events. What happened in other incidents has no bearing what may or may not happened in this instance.
JUDGE CANNONE: What do you say, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, what I say is this witness, especially with his experience on the road as a trooper, is he's had experience with pedestrian crashes. There's a well-known phenomenon with regard to pedestrians being tossed out of their shoes in the course of pedestrian crashes, and that's what, you know, the significance of the one shoe to this particular trooper as he made those observations in the hospital, which then led to some of the subsequent searches, obviously, later that day when the other shoe was located in the area of the crash.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it because it goes to the steps they took in their investigation which has been challenged from the first witness on.
MR. JACKSON: I have obviously to make a record and would like to make my record complete. I have absolutely no problem with him saying based on the fact that we found one shoe, we searched for the other shoe. If he had an absolute theory that a motor vehicle was a cause of the other shoe is going to be missing, of course he's going to look for the other shoe because there's only one shoe found.
JUDGE CANNONE: Right.
MR. JACKSON: But this is a backdoor way of getting in some expertise that he clearly does not have, clearly.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. The objection is overruled.
end of sidebar.)
MR. LALLY: May I proceed, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to your prior experience with pedestrian crashes involving motor vehicles, what, if any, observations that you made on those prior occasions in regard to the footwear with respect to the pedestrians and motor vehicle crashes?
MR. PROCTOR: In those experiences, I've observed one if not both pieces of footwear remained at the point of impact.
MR. LALLY: And so with respect to your observations of the clothing, there only being one sneaker of Mr. O'Keefe's property, what, if any, significance did that have to do you as far as the sort of steps you took subsequent in your investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: That was just a little piece of evidence that Sergeant Bukhenik and I picked up that only one piece of footwear revealed the potential of a vehicle strike.
MR. LALLY: Now, in addition to Sergeant Bukhenik is one of your supervisors within the detective unit; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And is another a Lieutenant Brian Tully?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to the one sneaker that was found in Mr. O'Keefe's property, what, if anything, with regard to that did you communicate to Lieutenant Tully?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: As to how it goes to the investigation?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Bukhenik and I informed Lieutenant Tully that there was one shoe at the hospital.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to Detective Lieutenant Tully, are you aware that subsequently in the afternoon that there was a search that was conducted in the area of 34 Fairview Road where Mr. O'Keefe was found?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And are you aware of what, if anything, was recovered in the area where Mr. O'Keefe was found on that day?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it as to the investigation.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what are you aware of?
MR. PROCTOR: We were informed -- Sergeant Bukhenik and I were informed that SERT team and Detective Lieutenant Tully discovered a black Nike sneaker with a white swoosh logo that was a match to Mr. O'Keefe's shoe at the hospital.
MR. LALLY: Now, from these items of clothing -- I'm sorry. Let me just let that siren go by. Trooper, in addition to the shoe that you've already referenced what if anything else did you observe about what kind of clothing and the condition of the clothing that you observed at the hospital?
MR. PROCTOR: The clothing seemed -- it was wet. It was pretty well saturated. The right sleeve had some like cuts to it, like tears to it. There was blood and vomit on it, if I recall. Those were the observations I had made of the clothing. It may have been cut due to first rendering first aid as well as in the pants area.
MR. LALLY: Now, subsequent to viewing these clothing items at the hospital at a later time, did you have an occasion to observe surveillance video from a variety of places on the evening of January 28, into the early morning of January 29, depicting Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, did you note with regard to the clothing that you observed at the hospital and the clothing that you observed in the video?
MR. PROCTOR: So the videos I reviewed at C.F. McCarthy's bar and the Waterfall bar were the same clothes Mr. O'Keefe was wearing that Sergeant Bukhenik and I had secured at the Good Samaritan Hospital.
MR. LALLY: Now, Trooper, I'm going to ask you some question just in regard to -- just in regards to securing these items specifically as evidence, but in general terms as far as securing items in evidence within your unit, how is that accomplished, how is that done, what do you do with items that you deem of evidentiary value that you then secure?
MR. PROCTOR: Generally, if we take an item for evidence, we'll put it in a brown paper bag, document it, time, date, who secured that item, address, where it was discovered, and then we'll bring that back to our office to the evidence processing area. From there, it will go to a permanent evidence room that is -- has triple retention. It has an actual key, a key card, and an actual access code and only three members of my office have access to that room - the two evidence officers and Detective Lieutenant Tully.
MR. LALLY: And at this time on January 29, 2022, who was assigned as the evidence officers who had access to that room?
MR. PROCTOR: So that would be Trooper David DiCicco and Trooper Jeffrey Kotkowski.
MR. LALLY: Did either yourself or Sergeant Bukhenik have any access to that evidence room?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to these items that were seized and say items that were seized subsequent during the course of your investigation, did they go through that same sort of evidentiary storage process that you were speaking about before?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to -- in addition to the clothing items, at some point did you come into possession and seize Mr. O'Keefe's phone?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And do you recall where it was that you received or retrieved Mr. O'Keefe's phone from?
MR. PROCTOR: We received it at the Canton Police Department.
MR. LALLY: And was that prior to you going to the Good Samaritan?
MR. PROCTOR: After I believe.
MR. LALLY: After. So following the Good Samaritan, where did you go from there?
MR. PROCTOR: So after the Good Samaritan Hospital, Sergeant Bukhenik and I traveled to 345 Country Hill Drive in Dighton.
MR. LALLY: And why did you go to that location?
MR. PROCTOR: That was the residence of Ms. Read's parents' home, and having a brief conversation with Ms. Read on the phone, she informed us she was at her parents' house.
MR. LALLY: So you had called Ms. Read, spoken to her, and informed her that you coming there to speak with her, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And just as you had done with Ms. McCabe, Mr. McCabe, you spoke to Ms. Read within her home?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And who, if anyone, else did you reach out to on your way there with regard to local law enforcement as you were driving to not Dighton?
MR. PROCTOR: We contacted the Dighton Police Department just for a couple reasons. One, it's a common courtesy. If we're in another town, we just kind of give the local PD a heads up. But also we needed to coordinate a plow truck and potentially a tow truck as well.
MR. LALLY: And why did you need to coordinate those?
MR. PROCTOR: At the time, there must've been at least a foot of snow on the ground more, and it was a dead-end cul-de- sac so which made it difficult to navigate. So we requested the plow to clear a path for Sergeant Bukhenik and I to get down the roadway as well as clear the driveway of the residence so the tow truck could pull into the driveway.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as the drive from Good Samaritan -- that's in Brockton; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: As far as the drive from the Good Samaritan in Brockton to the defendant's parents' home in Dighton, about how long a drive was that and how would you describe the weather conditions along the way?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, the weather conditions were white out, high winds, blizzard conditions. We had to travel very slow. It was almost about an hour to get there.
MR. LALLY: And when you arrived there, you were in Sergeant Bukhenik's truck; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And where did Sergeant Bukhenik position the truck in relation to the house at 345 Country Hill?
MR. PROCTOR: From what I recall, Sergeant Bukhenik went down the cul-de-sac and turned around, and he actually had to let me out first because of the high snowbanks and then he parked kind of along the snow pointing essentially to Mr. Read's house.
MR. LALLY: And at some point, did members of the Dighton police come along and join?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And do you recall who those people were?
MR. PROCTOR: I believe one of the officer's last name was Barros or Barrios.
MR. LALLY: And had you ever met that officer before?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: Now with respect to the home, had you and Sergeant Bukhenik approached the home at any time prior to the Dighton Police showing up?
MR. PROCTOR: I can't recall if -- no, they had arrived first before we approached the home.
MR. LALLY: And when you approached the home, you went -- how did you -- what did you traverse? How did you get from the street to the home?
MR. PROCTOR: We walked down the driveway and then we observed Ms. Read's Lexus parked in the driveway, the front of it facing one of the garage doors, and that's when we observed the broken taillight on the right side of the vehicle. We then proceeded to the front door - the snow was about up to our waist - and knocked on the door and was greeted by Mr. Read.
MR. LALLY: As you're walking up the driveway towards the home, you see Ms. Read's vehicle; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that's the vehicle that you later subsequently found to be registered to Ms. Karen Read; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Sir, I'm showing you a document. It's four pages in length. I'd just ask you to review that and look up when you're finished. And do you recognize that document, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize it to be?
MR. PROCTOR: The Registry of Motor Vehicles, it's the certified document for Ms. Read's Lexus.
MR. LALLY: And is that the plate information that's contained in there, is that the same plate that was affixed to Ms. Read's vehicle on that day?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that also details sort of the history or how long she's had possession of that vehicle; is that fair to say?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Going back to I believe 2021; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Commonwealth is seeking to introduce and admit as the next exhibit.
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 543, Registry of Motor Vehicle Records Regarding Karen Read, was marked as an exhibit.)
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to Ms. Read, at some point you go into the house; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And how do you enter into the defendant's parents' home?
MR. PROCTOR: So Sergeant Bukhenik and I after we had knocked on the front door, Mr. Read directed us around the corner, opened up the garage door for us and invited us in.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could take you back to -- I'm sorry -- just as far as when you're coming up the driveway and you're passing by the defendant's vehicle, you mentioned some damage that you observed to the right rear passenger side area; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Can you describe to the jury what it was specifically that you observed as far as damage to that area of the vehicle?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah. The right rear taillight had large pieces missing from it.
MR. LALLY: So you proceed inside the home and where -- where is it that you're directed and where is the defendant?
MR. PROCTOR: We were invited into a large living room area. Ms. Read is seated on a couch and her parents, William and Janet, are present for the conversation and kind of standing off to the side.
MR. LALLY: And that conversation goes on for approximately how long?
MR. PROCTOR: Approximately half hour, 40 minutes.
MR. LALLY: And when you terminate that conversation, you come back outside of the home; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And where is the vehicle at this point?
MR. PROCTOR: That is being put on the tow truck.
MR. LALLY: Now, in addition to the defendant's vehicle what, if anything else, was taken and seized as evidence from the defendant on that morning?
MR. PROCTOR: After confirming the phone Ms. Read was holding was in fact hers, we told her we were seizing the phone and we'd be writing a search warrant for that.
MR. LALLY: Now, during the course of the conversation that you and Sergeant Bukhenik had with the defendant that afternoon at her parents' home in Dighton, were there some questions in relation to contact information for other people that were at bars or different establishments the night before?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. We asked Ms. Read specifically for some of the friends that Mr. O'Keefe was with at C.F. McCarthy's, one person in particular was Michael Camerano. So we observed Ms. Read enter the passcode on her phone, retrieve Mr. Camerano's phone number for us, provide it to us, and that just further confirmed that was her cell phone.
MR. LALLY: Now, through your training and experience, when a cell phone is seized from a person what, if anything, is it that you do with regard to that cell phone to preserve the information on it?
MR. PROCTOR: Well, first thing we do is we put it in airplane mode and then we give it to a cell phone expert in our office, Trooper Nicholas Guarino, and he essentially tries to access the data in that phone once a search warrant is obtained.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as putting that cell phone in what you described as airplane mode, was is the purpose of that?
MR. PROCTOR: It's to avoid if someone wants to go on a tablet or a laptop and access the information on their phone and they can start deleting stuff up their iCloud. This prevents that.
MR. LALLY: So you secured the phone, you secured the vehicle on the tow truck, and then where did you and Sergeant Bukhenik go from there?
MR. PROCTOR: We followed the tow truck from the address in Dighton to the Canton Police Department where it was secured in the sally port bay.
MR. LALLY: And if you know, approximately what time was it that you arrived at the Canton Police Department and secured the defendant's vehicle in the sally port bay?
MR. PROCTOR: So we left Dighton around 4:16 p.m. and arrived in Canton at the police department at approximately 5:31 p.m.
MR. LALLY: And with reference to the Canton Police Department's sally port garage, why was the vehicle taken there?
MR. PROCTOR: I wasn't part of that decision, but it was my understanding that it was a heated facility. The other options were, I believe, the barracks at in Milton, but that's not large enough to house a vehicle that size and it's not heated.
MR. LALLY: And in regards to the heated, what the sort of purpose or utility of storing it in a heated setting?
MR. PROCTOR: Ms. Read's vehicle was covered with snow and ice at the time it was transported from Dighton to Canton.
MR. LALLY: And with regard to the sally port garage area of the Canton Police Department, at some point were you inside that area?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, observations did you make as far as the temperature or the heating within that facility?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't remember the exact -- like, I couldn't put a ballpark on temperature, but it was certainly warmer than outside.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as the vehicle was concerned either on scene -- either in Dighton or at the sally port garage or at any point in time that you were in the presence of that vehicle, what, if any, contact did you have, what, if anything, did you do or observe Sergeant Bukhenik to do with regard to that damaged area you described on the right rear passenger side?
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Bukhenik and I never touched any part of that vehicle.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the moving it from sort of the tow truck into the sally port area, how was that accomplished?
MR. PROCTOR: The tow truck driver removed it from the tow truck and pulled it into the sally port bay.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as prior to leaving that sally port area of the garage where the vehicle was, what, if anything, did you and Sergeant Bukhenik do with reference to securing that vehicle or cordoning it off in any way, shape, or form?
MR. PROCTOR: We try to set up a perimeter as best we could using caution tape and just kind of sectioned off with caution tape.
MR. LALLY: Now at some point, you leave the sally port of the Canton police station, and where did you go from there?
MR. PROCTOR: We had a debrief meeting. So there's other troopers. There's troopers at scene on 34 Fairview Road. There's other troopers conducting interviews. So at the end of the night, members of my office met in a conference room at the Canton Police Department to exchange information as far as what everyone had learned throughout the day.
MR. LALLY: And as far as that meeting is concerned, that's just troopers from your unit from your office; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And so there were no members of the Canton Police Department that were present for that; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: No. Correct.
MR. LALLY: And do you know why that was?
MR. PROCTOR: They had taken a step back from the investigation. They weren't going to participate in any interviews or anything of that nature.
MR. LALLY: And how is that communicated to you and Sergeant Bukhenik?
MR. PROCTOR: To the best of my recollection was that debrief meeting that we were informed that essentially Canton PD would be taking a step back from the investigation and that now this is solely a Norfolk -- a state police investigation.
MR. LALLY: So before we get to sort of the debriefing and all that's covered in that, as far as when you're on call and you get a call for any kind of sort of homicide or undetected -- unattended death or anything like that, you then become what's called a case officer for that investigation; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And can you describe for the jury sort of what the duty or the role is of the case officer vis-a-vis the rest of the members of the unit?
MR. PROCTOR: So essentially a case officer is more of a facilitator. You kind of delegate out tasks, coordinate interviews. The case officer isn't the sole decision-maker. I have supervisors. I have that we bounce ideas off of, I get feedback from. I also keep them updated. It's a collaborative effort in each investigation, we're a small office so when a homicide comes in everyone essentially drops what they're doing, and we all work on it together. So it's a collective effort to work on these cases and essentially a case officer is just kind of the recordkeeper of all the reports that come in and video that comes in, but when it comes down to decision-making time, it's a group effort.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to that collaborative effort that you were just discussing and this sort of debriefing meeting, so there were other troopers doing other things or other tasks throughout the course of the day of the 29th, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And so what was sort of the purpose of or - not specifically what was discussed - but in general terms, what was discussed during the course of this debriefing meeting?
MR. PROCTOR: The taillight pieces found at 34 Fairview Road by SERT, the one sneaker found at 34 Fairview Road, interviews conducted, and then Sergeant Bukhenik and I also shared everything we had kind of learned throughout the day as well.
MR. LALLY: And that debriefing meeting, if you know, about how long approximately did that take in this case?
MR. PROCTOR: I can't recall. Maybe a half hour, an hour.
MR. LALLY: And so following that meeting, where did you go from there?
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Bukhenik and I had secured some evidence. The clothing from Good Samaritan Hospital, the additional sneaker found at 34 Fairview Road as well as the taillight pieces discovered at 34 Fairview Road, and Mr. O'Keefe's cell phone and Ms. Read's cell phone, and him and I transported those to the office in Canton.
MR. LALLY: And when you transported them to the office in Canton, what, if anything, did you do with those items?
MR. PROCTOR: The two cell phones were given to Trooper Nicholas Guarino and the clothing was laid out on top of butcher paper to dry out in our evidence intake area, and then the bag taillight pieces were set aside in the evidence intake processing area. Sergeant Bukhenik and I didn't have access to the permanent evidence locker area, so we just secured them in the temporary intake area.
MR. LALLY: And that leads to my next question. As far as the area that you're talking about with regard to the clothing items and the other items that you secured beyond the cell phones, that was in a secure area of your office; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And by secure, I mean restricted access to the troopers within your unit, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. You need a key card, and it's also equipped with an alarm.
MR. LALLY: Now, following that as far as these items of evidence and other items of evidence that were seized throughout the course of an investigation, how is it that they go or what, if anything, is done, if you know, between the time that they go from this temporary storage area to the permanent storage area?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, I'm not an evidence officer. I never had been. My understanding is once it's in the evidence processing area, it gets put into the permanent evidence room that only, like I said, three -- two troopers and the detective lieutenant have access to, and it's the evidence officer's responsibility to process that material when they see fit.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could turn your attention to February 1, 2022. Were you working in regard to this investigation on that day as well?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And at some point did you have occasion to go back to the Canton Police Department, specifically in the sally port garage area?
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. LALLY: And what was the purpose of you going out to the sally port garage on that?
MR. PROCTOR: Pursuant to a search warrant, we were processing Ms. Read's Lexus SUV.
MR. LALLY: And when you say "we", who if anyone else was present with you or who if anyone else did you contact in reference to the processing pursuant to that search warrant of the defendant's vehicle?
MR. PROCTOR: So we had a chemist from the state police lab, Ms. Maureen Hartnett, as well as a trooper from crime scene services, Trooper Zachary Clark, and then later in the day, the accident recon team, Trooper Joe Paul had arrived as well.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could just ask you a couple of questions in regard to crime scene services section. Can you describe for the jury sort of what their role is in regard to investigations that you do and how they're sort of contacted?
MR. PROCTOR: So in any scene, if it's required for it to be documented, crime scene services will arrive. They'll document the scene with the photographs. In more serious situations, in a homicide, for instance, they'll actually take video as well as dust for fingerprints.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to this particular investigation, there were a number of different areas or different times when crime scene services was contacted to document things, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that would include at Good Samaritan when you observed injuries to Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: That would include the autopsy that was performed on Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: That would include February 1, in the sally port garage when the search warrant was executed on the defendant's vehicle?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: That would include subsequent searches that occurred at Fairview Road; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to each of those instances, if you know, was it ever the same trooper from crime scene services section that came out and memorialized each of those respective areas?
MR. PROCTOR: There was a different trooper each time.
MR. LALLY: And is that something that you or any member of your unit has any control over whatsoever as far as who shows up from crime scene services to memorialize or document a scene?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to the search warrant execution on February 1, what I want to ask is between the time that you were in the garage on January 29, 2022, and the time that you're there for the search warrant execution on February 1, had you been in that sally port area of the Canton police station at any time in between?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to the taillight area on the passenger side of the defendant's vehicle, what, if any, difference, or what, if any -- what, if anything, do you note sort of between your observations of the taillight on the 29th versus your observations on February 1?
MR. PROCTOR: The only difference from 29th to the lst was snow and ice had melted from the taillight.
MR. LALLY: So as far as the condition of that particular taillight, was it in essentially the same condition that you observed it on the 29th and when you observed it on the lst?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, it was still broken and large pieces missing from it.
MR. LALLY: But as far as the broken status of it and the pieces that were missing, were there any -- was there anymore broken or anymore pieces missing from it from when you saw it on the 1st versus when you saw it on the 29th?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to the taillight housing for that vehicle on that particular day, what, if anything, happened with it on that day, if you know?
MR. PROCTOR: The state police chemist, Ms. Hartnett, had it removed, which she brought to the lab herself.
MR. LALLY: So she had it removed, removed it herself, and then physically took it with her when she left to the lab?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, it was with the assistance of a Canton police officer who was -- had an auto body shop so he is kind of well-versed in cars so he was able to assist the chemist with removing the housing unit.
MR. LALLY: Now, at any point in time on that day on February 1, 2022, did you come into contact physically or otherwise with that taillight, did you handle it in any way, shape, or form?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: And, Your Honor, if I may with the Court's permission, I would request to publish -- give me one moment, Your Honor. If I may have one moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: My apologies, Your Honor. With the Court's permission if I could publish a portion of Exhibit 34?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: The sally port video. Ms. Gilman, if I could have from February 1, 2022, at approximately -- excuse me -- approximately 9:12 a.m. If you could just pause it right there. Thank you. Your Honor, if I may, it may be easier or more visible with this particular video with the lights on.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: We can try it out.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. LALLY: Trooper Proctor, directing your attention to what's up on the screen as Exhibit 34. Do you recognize what's depicted on the screen?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, that's the sally port area of the Canton Police Department and Ms. Read's Lexus kind of roped off with yellow caution tape.
MR. LALLY: And this is the execution of that search warrant that you were speaking about before as far as your presence and some of the other members of the state police and the state police lab which you were talking about?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if you could run from here.
MR. LALLY: And, sir, while this is going, if I could just ask a couple of questions. As far as people within this video, do you recognize anyone in this video?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, myself kind of top of the screen, Trooper Zach Clark would be the one with the camera taking photographs of the vehicle.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to this video from the sally port garage of Canton Police Department, what, if anything, did you learn over course of this in regard to how that video is recorded or how it's -- what, if anything, sort of activates that video?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask it differently, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: As far as this video is concerned, it this one continuous time frame that we're looking at or how is it --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. PROCTOR: My understanding it's motion activated --
JUDGE CANNONE: That means you can't answer it.
MR. PROCTOR: Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. You can --
MR. JACKSON: Move to strike.
MR. LALLY: I'm not sure there was anything said. A No.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll strike if there was anything. But, Mr. Lally, just ask a question, please.
MR. LALLY: With respect to this video, as far as the recording is set up, how is that activated or how does it record?
MR. JACKSON: Objection. Same question.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah. How does he know that? It's sustained.
MR. LALLY: Have you watched this video or other videos from the Canton Police Department sally port garage?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: What, if anything, did you note with regard to timing as far as -- is there a timestamp on the video; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, did you note with regard to the timestamp on this video or the other videos that you observed with regard to how time moved throughout the video?
MR. PROCTOR: The timestamp on the video tends to pause indicating it's motion activated.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: It tends to pause I'll strike after.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could play until about 9:24. Ms. Gilman, you can take that down. Thank you very much.
MR. LALLY: Now, Trooper, with regard to that taillight that was then taken by Ms. Hartnett to the lab; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And at some point, that was returned to the custody of the state police, your detective unit?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And do you have that taillight housing with you today in court?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. LALLY: And, Your Honor, with the Court's permission if the trooper could retrieve that.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: It probably will be easier that way. Sir, you can stay right there.
MR. LALLY: Handing you an item, sir. Do you recognize that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize that to be?
MR. PROCTOR: That's the -- I recognize that to be the housing unit.
MR. LALLY: And as far as your recognizing of the housing unit, is there any sort of denotation or anything on the outside of that box indicating what's contained therein?
MR. PROCTOR: There's a state police crime lab sticker with a number associated with it. It also indicates fragile and evidence tape that is initialed and dated as well when it's sealed up.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor -- A And it's the sticker also says passenger side TA indicating taillight.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would ask or seek to admit and introduce that as the next exhibit.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you want it out of the box first, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: If we could just take a quick look at it.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. LALLY: With the Court's permission, if the witness may remove from the box.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. PROCTOR: (Witness complies.) (The witness displayed the exhibit.)
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir. Trooper, you can go ahead and put that back in the box. Thank you very much.
MR. PROCTOR: (Witness complies.)
JUDGE CANNONE: We need to mark that, and we're going to mark it twice, folks. We're going to mark the bag within the box and we'll mark the box as well.
MR. LALLY: I'm sorry, Trooper, if you could hand that to --
COURT REPORTER: Hold on.
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on. So it's going to be 544 and 544A.
COURT REPORTER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may I inquire, is the A is the light and 544 is the bag?
JUDGE CANNONE: We're not even putting it right on the light because it's broken.
MR. JACKSON: Understood.
JUDGE CANNONE: So we're putting 544 on the bag, 544A on the box.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Thank you.
COURT REPORTER: Trooper, can you put that on the bag, please.
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 544, Evidence Bag with Taillight Housing, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 544A, Evidence Box with Evidence Bag with Taillight Housing, was marked as an exhibit.)
MR. LALLY: Trooper, with respect to that item that's just been marked as evidence, is that essentially the condition that you observed it in both on January 29, and February 1?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. Yes.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, if I could ask just to publish what's been marked as Exhibit 147?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Trooper Proctor, do you recognize what's up on the screen that's been marked as Exhibit 147?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: What do you recognize that to be?
MR. PROCTOR: That is the right taillight of Ms. Read's Lexus SUV, and you can see large pieces of it are missing.
MR. LALLY: Again, is that in the same condition that you observed it both on February 1 as well as January 29, obviously minus the snow and the ice?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah. Minus the snow and ice, sir, yes, sir.
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.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could turn your attention to February 3rd of 2022. In the morning hours of that date, where did you go in regard to this investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Bukhenik, Trooper David DiCicco and myself went to 34 Fairview Road along with Trooper Evan Brandt from crime scene services to essentially dig out the snow in pursuit for more evidence.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as you mentioned as far as dig out the snow in pursuit of other evidence, what, if any, tools or implements did you and the other troopers bring with you in order to effectuate that on February 1?
MR. PROCTOR: We just had kind of standard snow shovels.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to that as far as going back to 34 Fairview Road, and let me clarify as far as that's concerned. Prior to that date of February 3, 2022, had you been to 34 Fairview Road at any point in time in the course of your investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: So that morning of February 3, that's the first time that you went?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now with respect to -- is that -- how many times did you go to the area of 34 Fairview Road over the course of the next sort of days and weeks in regard to potential recovery of items?
MR. PROCTOR: So February 3, I retrieved items on the 8th, the llth, and 18th, and was out there on the 10th with Sergeant Bukhenik as well.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as any of those occasions that you just described that you went to the area of 34 Fairview Road, on any of those occasions were you by yourself?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to those other occasions, what type of people or who was with you? I know you mentioned on the 3rd. But beyond the 3rd, those other occasions that you described, who was with you?
MR. PROCTOR: On the 18th, I believe it was Trooper DiCicco based on the handwriting on the evidence bag. I kind of recognized his handwriting. And the other two dates, I don't recall who was out there with me.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to items that were located starting with the 3rd, do you recall specifically what, if any, items were located on the 3rd?
MR. PROCTOR: We located a black drinking straw consistent with the one seen in the Waterfall video of Mr. O'Keefe walking out of the bar holding the glass. We located his hat that had the American flag that was deep underneath the snow. As we were digging, we discovered that. We further discovered other pieces of plastic as well.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as these return trips on successive dates to 34 Fairview Road, what was the reasoning behind that or what was sort of the plan in reference to why were there so many different dates that you returned to 34 Fairview Road with other troopers?
MR. PROCTOR: So after the 29th, there was close to, what, 2 feet of snow that had fallen, and the days and weeks that had followed, the temperatures ranged from 30 degrees up to 60 degrees, and there was about half a dozen days mixed in of, you know, heavy rain. So as the snow started to melt, more evidence started to present itself.
MR. LALLY: So there were items that you recovered on the 3rd and then items you recovered on successive dates that weren't visible or you didn't see on the 3rd, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could keeping you on February 3. You mentioned that that were a Trooper Evan Brandt that was present with you during the search on that day as well?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, in addition to going to 34 Fairview Road, where else did yourself and Trooper Brandt go on that particular day?
MR. PROCTOR: We traveled to 1 Meadows Ave., Mr. O'Keefe's residence.
MR. LALLY: And is that the first time that you had been to 1 Meadows Ave. or Mr. O'Keefe's residence.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now with respect to that residence, why is it that you and Trooper Brandt went there on February 3?
MR. PROCTOR: We wanted to document Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle to ensure that there was no damage to it as well as the garage doors.
MR. LALLY: And why did you want to document that?
MR. PROCTOR: During the review of Mr. O'Keefe's Ring video, particularly the one above the garage that displays the driveway, on the 29th at approximately 5:07 a.m., Ms. Read is pulling her vehicle out of the garage door backing up towards Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle and comes extremely close, if not slightly hitting the vehicle. So we wanted to at least go document that there was no damage to Mr. O'Keefe's car.
MR. LALLY: And, Your Honor, with the Court's permission if I could publish that for the jury as far as what's been marked Exhibit 6, video 153.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Video played.)
MR. LALLY: And, Ms. Gilman, if I could have you pause.
MR. LALLY: Trooper Proctor, with regard to this Ring video, how is this obtained, if you know?
MR. PROCTOR: So we first observed it through Mr. O'Keefe's cell phone on the Ring app, and then I wrote a search warrant for Ring itself.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the video that you received from Ring, did they match what was on the -- or what was viewable being the Ring app on Mr. O'Keefe's cell phone?
MR. PROCTOR: The videos on Mr. O'Keefe's app, yes, when produced matched.
MR. LALLY: So as far as any videos that were present that you received pursuant to the search warrant or any videos that were not present, that was consistent with what you observed on Mr. O'Keefe's app on his phone?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, Ms. Gilman, if you could, press play from here.
(Video played.)
MR. LALLY: Now, Trooper Proctor, with regard to this video, you've seen this before; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now the point from this video, are you able to discern who the operator of that vehicle is?
MR. PROCTOR: Based off the attire, Ms. Read driving.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to when that vehicle, the defendant's vehicle, if you could there's a laser pointer up there in front of you on the desk. If you could, I would ask you to draw the jurors' attention to what, if any, vehicles you observed in this video and whose vehicle.
MR. PROCTOR: So right there it's Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle and Ms. Read's vehicle.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as when those vehicles come close or come into contact with each other, as far as Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle is concerned, what, if anything, did you observe, like, on Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle at the time?
MR. PROCTOR: There is some snow I see on the back window here, the bumper and the windows here is starting to be covered in snow.
MR. LALLY: And as far as when that vehicle comes close to it or makes contact with Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle, what, if anything, you observe the snow come off of the car at that point?
MR. PROCTOR: I do not, no.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to the back area of Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle, specifically an area of the ground, as far as that area on the ground, what, if anything, did you observe in reference to the red pieces or any pieces of taillight or plastic or glass or anything in that area that you observed on this video?
MR. PROCTOR: So this area here is you can see the white snow. There's no red pieces of taillight which would show up in the contrast of white snow.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if you could run it from there for a moment.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the damaged area that you were discussing previous that you observed in the January 29, from the sally port, February 1, from the sally port, and then the item that was just marked as evidence, what, if anything, did you observe on the right rear passenger side taillight area of the defendant's vehicle from this video?
MR. PROCTOR: You can see the inconsistent lighting. If you compare it to the left versus the right, there's a gap right there.
MR. LALLY: And from what you observed in that video, does that appear to be consistent with what you observed on January 29, at the Canton Police Department, February 1, and the item of evidence that was just marked?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. Ms. Gilman, you can take that down. Mr. Officer, we can have the lights back on. Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, you proceeded to 1 Meadows Ave. for the first time on February 3; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And Trooper Brandt from crime scene was with you and took some photographs; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And, Trooper, I'm showing you a set of ten photographs. Actually, if you review those and look up when you're finished. And, Trooper, just generally speaking, do you recognize what's depicted in those photographs?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize them to be?
MR. PROCTOR: The front is the -- the first picture is the front door of Mr. O'Keefe's house, and it's also Mr. O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Commonwealth would seek to introduce and admit as the next ten exhibits.
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 545, Photograph of O'Keefe's Front Door at 1 Meadows, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 546, Photograph of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 547, Photograph of Rear License Plate of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 548, Photograph of Ring Camera on O'Keefe's Garage, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 549, Photograph Rear/Driver's Side of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 550, Photograph of Rear of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 551, Rear/Passenger's Side of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, Photograph of O'Keefe's Front Door at 1 Meadows, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 552, Photograph of Rear/Passenger's Side of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 553, Photograph Close-up of Rear Passenger Side of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 554, Photograph of Close-up of Rear Passenger Side of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, was marked as an exhibit.)
MR. LALLY: And, Your Honor, with the Court's permission if I could just have permission to publish just a few of those photos for the jury.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if I could have photographs 7752.
MR. LALLY: And, Trooper Proctor, do you recognize what's up on the screen has now been marked as Exhibit 546?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. Mr. O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse vehicle.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to this particular foreground here, if you could you describe for the jury what we're looking at there.
MR. PROCTOR: So that is Mr. O'Keefe's driveway. You see two garage doors there that lead into the house, and above those garage doors is the Ring camera.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to the rear of Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle from your viewing of the video from Exhibit 6 from the Ring video, video number 153, if you could using that laser pointer direct the jury's attention to where it is on this vehicle that's there’s contact, if any, with Ms. Read's vehicle and Mr. O’Keefe’s vehicle?
MR. PROCTOR: It would have been in this general area here
(indicating).
MR. LALLY: And as far as your observation --
MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor.
MR. LALLY: -- on that date February 3 --
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on. Hold on.
MR. JACKSON: May we approach, briefly?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Sidebar commences:
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, it appears that the witness has just indicated where he believes there was impact made between the Traverse and the Lexus SUV. That is completely outside the bounds of his expertise. He doesn't have any more knowledge of where that car impacted anything other than the 17 people who are more instructive than the 17 people looking at the exact same video. It's completely uncalled for.
JUDGE CANNONE: There's been an awful lot of this on both sides during this trial. You're objecting that the video speaks for itself?
MR. JACKSON: A hundred percent.
JUDGE CANNONE: Well, I --
MR. JACKSON: I just don't think that is appropriate.
JUDGE CANNONE: What do you want to say?
MR. LALLY: Again, I can ask it a different way as far as just asking him to direct to a certain area of the vehicle, if that's what counsel prefers, but he's just directing to a certain area on the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: He has manipulated, completely motivated --
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Hold on. The objection is sustained. You can direct his attention to the -- where you want to direct his attention.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: I'd ask to strike the last answer.
JUDGE CANNONE: I don't know what he said. The question was being asked. He hasn't answered it yet.
MR. JACKSON: No, no. So the question before where he started playing with the laser pointer saying, "This over here," is down below, the lower part of the bumper --
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: -- and that's why I objected.
JUDGE CANNONE: You -- there's the -- no, I'm not going to strike anything. The question is prohibited, and we'll move on.
MR. JACKSON: Just for clarification --
JUDGE CANNONE: You didn't object when Mr. Lally asked the question.
MR. JACKSON: I didn't because he said, “Could you see that area was --
JUDGE CANNONE: What was your question?
MR. JACKSON: -- there was contact,” or something like that.
JUDGE CANNONE: What was your question?
MR. LALLY: I believe the first question was if you could use the laser pointer to direct the jury's attention to the area that you believe that vehicle and the defendant's vehicle came into contact with this vehicle. And he did that. And then my next question, which I was in the middle of asking and was objected to was, as far as what, if any, damage he observed in the driveway that day to that area of the vehicle.
JUDGE CANNONE: And that's when the objection.
MR. LALLY: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: You want me to strike a chalk?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. What he was pointing to, It’s inappropriate for him to determine for the jury when he believes the cars came in contact with one another. Once I looked up and saw that he was pointing to the left lower bumper area, I objected. And then Mr. Lally began his question, and we talked over each other. My point is that should not be within the purview of this witness to direct the jurors where he believes the cars came in contact because the video in this instance absolutely speak for itself. Everybody can make up their own mind.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. I'm not going to strike it, but don't ask it further. That's it. That's my ruling.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
end of sidebar.)
MR. LALLY: Trooper, when you were in the driveway of Mr. O'Keefe's residence on February 3, 2022, you had occasion to make observations of Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, damage did you observe to the driver's side rear area of the vehicle?
MR. PROCTOR: I didn't observe any significant damage or any damage.
MR. LALLY: As far as the entirety of the vehicle, that was all photographed on that day by Trooper Brandt; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And memorialized in those photographs that were just presented to you; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And as far as your observations on that day or in those photographs, what, if any, damage did you observe to Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not observe any damage.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Sir, there's another eight photographs that I've placed before you. Have you had a chance to review those?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And do you recognize what's depicted in those eight photographs?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize those to be?
MR. PROCTOR: More photographs of Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle as well as the garage doors.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Commonwealth would seek to introduce as the next eight exhibits.
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
COURT REPORTER: Exhibits 555 through 562, Your Honor.
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 555, Photograph of Passenger Side Doors of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 556, Photograph of Front Passenger Side of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 557, Photograph of Front Driver Side of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 558, Photograph of Driver's Side of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 559, Photograph Closeup of Driver's Side Rear Bumper of O'Keefe's Chevy Traverse, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 560, Photograph of Two Garage Doors of O'Keefe's House, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 561, Photograph of Two Garage Doors of O'Keefe's House, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 562, Closeup of Garage Door of O'Keefe's House, was marked as an exhibit.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission if I could publish this to you as well as to the jury as well.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if I could have photographs 7779.
MR. LALLY: And, Trooper, do you recognize what's depicted on the screen now as Exhibit 559?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And if you could describe for the jury what we're looking at in 559?
MR. PROCTOR: It's the rear bumper area of Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle.
MR. LALLY: Is that the driver side or the passenger side of the vehicle?
MR. PROCTOR: The driver's side.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, damage did you observe in that area of the vehicle on February 3, when you were there?
MR. PROCTOR: No damage.
MR. LALLY: Now with respect --
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, if I could have photograph 7780.
MR. LALLY: And, sir, do you recognize what's up on the screen and what's now been marked as Exhibit 560?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, those are the two garage doors of Mr. O'Keefe's house.
MR. LALLY: And what's contained up on that screen, is that a fair and accurate portrayal what you observed in Mr. O'Keefe's garage door for February 3?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to those garage doors, what, if any, damage did you note or observe on those garage doors at any point when you were there on February 3?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not observe any damage to the garage doors.
MR. LALLY: Ms. Gilman, you can take that down.
MR. LALLY: Now, Trooper Proctor, subsequent dates following February 3, specifically February 8, 11th, and 18th, did you have occasion to return to 34 Fairview Road on those days?
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. LALLY: And you had mentioned a little bit about sort of changes in the weather. What, if anything, sort of evolved as far as the weather was concerned between the dates of February 3, when you were there, and February 8, 11, and 18th?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, as I mentioned the weather pattern had kind of fluctuated from, you know, 30 degrees up to 60 degrees with a handful of days of heavy rain mixed in, so that caused a lot of snow to melt as well.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to each of those respective days of February 8, 11th, and 18th, what, if anything, did you observe or recover you and the other troopers that were present on those dates?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, it was further evidence that was originally buried under the snow because of the warm temperature and the rain and the snow melting kind of revealed itself more pieces of plastic clear and red.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to the residence at 34 Fairview Road, each of these times that you were at the residence, including February 3, where in relation to the house were these items observed and recovered by you and the other troopers on those respective dates?
MR. PROCTOR: So if you're looking at 34 Fairview looking at the front of the house, it's to the left side of the property between like the flagpole and kind of the fire hydrant in that general area, the front and left of the property.
MR. LALLY: Now, with regard to these three subsequent dates as far as February 8, 11, and 18th, these items that were observed and recovered on those dates, where were they in relation to the roadway? Where were they in relation to the hydrant and the flagpole, and other sort of markers in the area?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't generally -- I don't specifically remember exactly if they were around the flagpole because the SERT team had came and shoveled an area around, so that stuff had melted first because there was a lot less snow, and then they created more piles. But as far as the general area, it was by the flagpole and fire hydrant. It wasn't like on the other side of the property. It was in that general area.
MR. LALLY: And just with respect to those items, were they generally found or what do they -- were they specifically found either on the grass or the roadway area?
MR. PROCTOR: Grass area.
MR. LALLY: Asphalt or grass is basically what I'm asking.
MR. PROCTOR: I'm sorry. Grass area.
MR. LALLY: And with regard to each of those items that were recovered on those three successive dates as far as February 8, 11, and 18th, did you bring those items with you to court today as well?
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Do you recognize that bag, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. LALLY: What do you recognize that to be?
MR. PROCTOR: It's an evidence bag containing three smaller evidence bags.
MR. LALLY: And with the Court's permission if you could --
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on a second.
MR. LALLY: My apologies, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead.
MR. LALLY: With the Court's permission, may the witness remove the three smaller bags from the larger bag?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And, Trooper, if I could, just in succession, if I could ask you to please open the bag with respect to February 8, first? And before you do that, I apologize again. With respect to that bag, what, if any, indication is there as to the contents therein?
MR. PROCTOR: It says, "Taillight, one large piece of plastic color red, one small piece of red plastic, and one piece of black plastic located at 34 Fairview Road, front lawn, left side."
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir. If you could please remove those.
MR. PROCTOR: (Witness complies.)
MR. LALLY: Sir, you can place those back in the bag.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, the Commonwealth would seek to introduce it as the next exhibit.
MR. JACKSON: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 563.
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 563, Evidence Bag with Pieces of Red, Clear, and Black Taillight Pieces, was marked and entered as an exhibit.)
MR. LALLY: Sir, if I could ask you just to retrieve the bag that's marked -- retrieve the bag of items that were seized on February 11, and if you could read to the jury what the description is in regard to that evidence bag. So it's from the 11th. This one is described as, "Glass fragments," I can't tell how many pieces. It's been taped over. The second bag from the 11th says, "Three pieces of clear plastic, five pieces of red plastic."
MR. LALLY: And with the Court's permission, may the witness remove those items from the bag?
JUDGE CANNONE: All right.
MR. PROCTOR: The small bag in here containing the glass, do you want me to cut that open as well?
MR. LALLY: I think that's sufficient.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So Madam Court Reporter will -- are you moving to introduce it?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: With Madam Court Reporter. Any objection? We can go ahead --
MR. JACKSON: I don't want to object, but I don't know what's in that bag.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead and open it.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. PROCTOR: These items appear to be just further sealed up and wrapped up and --
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you want him to open every one, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I just can't see that far.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So go --
MR. JACKSON: I don't need them both. No objection.
COURT REPORTER: We have a number of how many small pieces?
JUDGE CANNONE: How many pieces are in there, Trooper?
MR. PROCTOR: One, two -- seven.
COURT REPORTER: That will be 564.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
COURT REPORTER: The brownbag will be 564A.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
COURT REPORTER: Containing seven pieces.
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 564, Small White Bag with Seven Pieces of Glass Inside Brown Evidence Bag, was marked as an exhibit.)
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 564A, Evidence Bag with Small White Bag Containing Seven Pieces, was marked as an exhibit.)
MR. LALLY: Trooper, if you could, the other bag from the 11th, if you could open that up and remove those items. Thank you, sir. If you could put those back in the bag.
MR. PROCTOR: (Witness complies.)
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, the Commonwealth would seek to introduce and admit as the next exhibit.
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 565.
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 565, Evidence Bag with Bight Pieces of Red and Clear Plastic, was marked as an exhibit.)
MR. LALLY: And lastly, sir, with regard to the bag from February 18, if you could read to the jury what's indicated as far as contents therein?
MR. PROCTOR: "Several pieces of red and clear plastic."
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, may the witness retrieve the items?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir. If you could return the items to the bag.
MR. PROCTOR: (Witness complies.)
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, the Commonwealth is seeking to admit that as an exhibit.
MR. JACKSON: No objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right.
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 566, Your Honor.
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 566, Evidence Bag with Pieces of Red and Clear Plastic, was marked as an exhibit.)
MR. PROCTOR: Here's the original bag.
MR. LALLY: Now, Trooper, with regard to each of those items from February 8, 10, and 11th -- excuse me. Forgive me. Eighth, eleventh, and eighteenth, those were all items that you recovered from the front lawn area of 34 Fairview Road; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what was just displayed to the jury, is that essentially the condition they were in when you recovered them on those respective dates?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could turn your attention just briefly regarding the search warrants in regard to the Ring video from Mr. O'Keefe's house. Was that one search warrant or more than one search warrant that you did in respect to those Ring video?
MR. PROCTOR: There was a second search warrant for the Ring videos for Mr. O'Keefe's house.
MR. LALLY: And if you recall, what was the general time frame that was asked for in that warrant as far as from what date to what date?
MR. PROCTOR: The second one I believe was January 30 to either the 3rd or the 4th I believe.
MR. LALLY: Was the first one essentially from the 24th to the 29th?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to the video that you received in regard to the first search warrant through Ring, what kind of information did you receive from Ring as far as what -- beyond sort of beyond the video itself, what, if any, other information did you receive as far as accounts or activity or anything like that?
MR. PROCTOR: It was just confirming that the user account was under Mr. O'Keefe's email and then there was an Excel file where you kind of have to transcribe. So each video has about a 17 digit number associated with a unique identifier. You take that 17 digit number and you got to convert it using these Excel files to get the date and time.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to what you received pursuant to the search warrant from Ring, was there any kind of activity log, and what I mean by that, what, if any, information did you receive as far as what sort of devices or how many different devices were able to access that footage?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, I wasn't able to obtain an activity log of who was using the device, what device was accessing the system, you know, something, you know, if someone logged in, I had no -- was not provided with any record of who was logging in or what day or time.
MR. LALLY: Now, are you familiar with the term just as far as videos are concerned or electronic devices what's referred to as a digital footprint?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now with respect to some of these -- or the Ring videos in totality that you received and that you also viewed pursuant to the app on Mr. O'Keefe's phone, were there certain time periods where you would've expected to see video in which there was no video?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you describe for the jury sort of when those time periods were?
MR. PROCTOR: So the Ring camera above Mr. O'Keefe's garage is pretty sensitive, so it does not have Ms. Read arriving back at Mr. O'Keefe's house. Around 12:34 a.m. is approximately was when she should've arrived. The only video -- there's a gap from approximately 11:45 p.m. on the 28th to about 5:07 a.m. on the 29th when Ms. Read is backing out. It never has her pulling into the garage. And there's also a second video of Ms. Roberts, Ms. McCabe, and Ms. Read looking at the broken taillight in the morning.
MR. LALLY: What, if any, follow-up or inquiry did you make of Ring in regard to those missing videos?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, I inquired several different times as far as if a video is deleted, is there some type of a record?
MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: That was his inquiry. But next question. I'll allow that.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as that term that you used before as far as a digital imprint, can you explain to the jury what you understand that term to mean?
MR. PROCTOR: Essentially, a digital footprint is if, you know, a video is created it's going to leave some type of record in the archives.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, information did you receive from ring as far as their videos' system is concerned and in regard to a digital footprint?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Not what anybody told you, but what you received.
MR. PROCTOR: That if the video is deleted --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: The objection is sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Move to strike.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to strike that.
MR. LALLY: Upon your further inquiry of Ring, were you ever able to obtain any video from those specific sections where you anticipated video would be?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could turn your attention to January 16, 2024. Do you recall that date?
MR. PROCTOR: I do not, sir.
MR. LALLY: At some point over the course of your investigation, were you made aware of forensic evidence in relation to the taillight housing that was introduced earlier as an exhibit?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to that, at some point did you have occasion to meet with a Sergeant Brian Gallerani of the Needham Police Department?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And where was that?
MR. PROCTOR: In the DA's office.
MR. LALLY: And who, if anyone else, involved in this investigation as far as yourself? Was Sergeant Bukhenik there with you as well?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, did Sergeant Gallerani do with respect to yourself and Sergeant Bukhenik on that date in January of 2024?
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Bukhenik and I voluntarily provided our DNA for comparison testing.
MR. LALLY: And again, taking me to my next point, that was a voluntary decision that both you and Sergeant Bukhenik made as far as availing yourself or availing of that particular testing?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the testing, do you know how that was -- or can you describe for the jury sort of how that sample was collected or how it was conducted?
MR. PROCTOR: Essentially, it's just a swab of the mouth under the tongue with like a -- it's basically like a little pad on a stick and you get swabbed and that's how the DNA or saliva is collected.
MR. LALLY: And as far as those samples that were collected from both yourself and Sergeant Bukhenik on that particular day, where did they go from there as far as you know?
MR. PROCTOR: It was my understanding they went to the Bode Lab in Virginia.
MR. LALLY: And I'm sorry. What I should have asked as far as that when they left from the room that you were in with Sergeant Gallerani, did you take those swabs or did Sergeant Gallerani take those swabs?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: Where did they go?
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Gallerani took possession of those items.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir. Now, sir, with reference over the course of your investigation, you interviewed a number of different witnesses, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And from the witnesses that you -- were there witness interviews that were conducted outside of your presence in the sense that you weren't there for those particular witness interviews?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And each of the interviews that you're aware of, whether they were conducted by you or outside your presence, were done with the exception of the Currans, were done with more than trooper present, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to those witness interviews that you were present for, from the witnesses that you spoke with, along with other troopers that were present with you, who if any of those witnesses had you met or were you -- did you know prior to the interview that you conducted?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah. So all the witnesses that I had interviewed, the only individuals that I know or had prior to this investigation was Julie and Chris Albert and Colin Albert.
MR. LALLY: And how is it that you knew Julie Albert, Christopher Albert, and Colin Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: So my sister Courtney, her friend growing up Jillian, Jillian's sister is Julie. My sister got to know Julie Albert - or Julie Daniels is her maiden name - through her friend Jillian. Julie married Chris Albert, so my sister got to know Chris through Jillian and Julie. And then years down the road, my sister had Julie babysit my nephew. She would -- Julie would come from time to time and pick my nephew up from school. So that's how they kind of became friendly. And on occasion, they would be over my sister's house or at my parents' backyard, and Julie and Chris and their kid Colin and I would happen to be there.
MR. LALLY: Let me ask it this way. As far as -- where did grow up?
MR. PROCTOR: Canton.
MR. LALLY: And did you graduate from Canton High School?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And as far as any of the witnesses that you interviewed, even the Alberts that you were just talking about Christopher, Julie, and Colin Albert, were they around the same ages as you or went to high school with you at the same time?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: How much older than you were Julie and Chris Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: At least ten years.
MR. LALLY: And as far as Colin Albert, how much -- what's the age difference between yourself and him.
MR. PROCTOR: At least 20.
MR. LALLY: Fair to say around this time of January 2022, do you know how old Colin was or what level of school he was at that point?
MR. PROCTOR: He was a senior in high school, I believe.
MR. LALLY: And is that something that you learned through this investigation or something that you knew independently?
MR. PROCTOR: Something I learned through this investigation.
MR. LALLY: Now, so you grew up in Canton and your sister did as well?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And your sister's name is Courtney; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what is the age difference between yourself and your sister Courtney?
MR. PROCTOR: She's two years older than me.
MR. LALLY: And how close are you and your sister?
MR. PROCTOR: She's probably one of my best friends. We talk about five, six times a day about anything and everything as far as like mostly our children.
MR. LALLY: And she has -- how many children does your sister have?
MR. PROCTOR: She's got two.
MR. LALLY: And about how old are they?
MR. PROCTOR: Ten and seven.
MR. LALLY: And you have children as well?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. LALLY: And how old are they?
MR. PROCTOR: Two and four.
MR. LALLY: Now with respect to the conversation that you have with your sister about five or six times a day, how do you have those conversations? Is it via voice call or in person or text or if you know?
MR. PROCTOR: Everything. FaceTime, phone calls, text messages. We're always kind of keeping each other up to date on mainly our kids.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as Julie and Christopher Albert, when did you interview them in relation to this incident?
MR. PROCTOR: Sometime in February. I’d have to look at my report for the exact date.
MR. LALLY: Sometime in say early to mid-February?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to them, who, if anyone else, was present with you when you interviewed them?
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Bukhenik.
MR. LALLY: And do you recall where you -- where the interview took place?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, it was at their home.
MR. LALLY: Now, prior to this date that you went over to interview Christopher and Julie Albert, had you ever been over to that house before?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: Had you ever been over to any home where Christopher and Julie Albert had presided then or previously to that date?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: Had Christopher or Julie Albert, to your knowledge, ever been over to your home?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to Christopher and Julie Albert and Colin Albert - we'll throw him in there as well - how would you sort of describe your relationship with them prior to January 29th of 2022?
MR. PROCTOR: I'd classify it as acquaintances.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Mr. Lally, why don't we take our luncheon break.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
(Jury out.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Trooper, you can just follow the court officer out.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. JACKSON: Could counsel approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
COURT CLERK: Counsel.
(Sidebar commences:
MR. JACKSON: The question was objected to; the answer was stricken, but I'm concerned about one of the answers that was attempted to be elicited. This -- he’s gone now.
JUDGE CANNONE: Right.
MR. JACKSON: This witness indicated an objectionable hearsay question about hearing from Ring that videos -- that the digital fingerprint suggested that videos had been deleted is the first I've heard of that. No, I have no report on that.
MR. LALLY: That's not what he said and that's not what he was -- what I was trying to elicit from him was that if a video was deleted, there is no digital footprint in relation to that video so you can't tell, and Ring couldn't tell us or him whether or not a video had existed in some place that wasn't there anymore. So he wasn't testifying that something had been deleted. He was just testifying that if something had been deleted, there would be no record, there would be no -- no documentation regarding that.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: That's very different than what I --
JUDGE CANNONE: And that's exactly what I have that the video was deleted. If the video would create -- I sustained the objection and I struck it. He said deleted as well, created a footprint, never obtained video. I thought the answer was just going to be, did you ever obtain it, and the answer was no.
MR. JACKSON: Right. He started with the two words "deleted videos" and I objected and that was stricken because it was obviously hearsay. That leaves the jurors with the impression that I was that it was stricken, and I expect them to follow their instructions, but it seems like there is a bell that's been rung, unless I'm mistaken, and to put it incorrectly, and I'll rely on co-counsel to correct me if I am, but it sounded very much like what he was about to say was he was told by Ring that there was the digital fingerprint or digital footprint that indicated that there were deleted videos in that database.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's an awful lot for him to get out when it was struck, right? Like, the objection is sustained. Move to strike. Stricken. I didn't hear all of that.
MR. JACKSON: All he said -- all he -- he got out two words, and the two words were "deleted videos" and I thought he was about to say deleted videos weren't found in the system and I objected.
JUDGE CANNONE: You just said a whole string of words that I thought you said he said.
MR. JACKSON: Right. I think -- may I -- I think I can clear this up. Let's do this after lunch.
JUDGE CANNONE: No, no, let's do it now. I don't want to bring them in.
(Counsel confer.)
MR. JACKSON: So what Mr. Yanetti just told me is what I'm trying to say inartfully is the term "digital fingerprint" was used in the question and then the answer the words "deleted videos" were used and the inference it's speculation that a digital fingerprint shows that there were deleted videos. That needs to be cleared up.
JUDGE CANNONE: But it was all struck, right?
MR. JACKSON: I don't know.
JUDGE CANNONE: It was struck. What are you asking me to do, specifically?
MR. JACKSON: Maybe we can stipulate that --
JUDGE CANNONE: No, no, this will be an instruction. That's why what are you asking me to do?
MR. JACKSON: To instruct the jurors exactly what Mr. Lally just said, which I have no problem with. If that’s what he was seeking to elicit, that is consistent with the information we have that there would be no digital fingerprint so whatever that sentence was that he just said, I think the jurors should be instructed on that because that's the true fact.
JUDGE CANNONE: So I'm not going to give an instruction that says what a fact is. You can do that through cross-examination. I can give an instruction that says, anything that I order you -- that I order stricken from the record, you are not to consider.
MR. JACKSON: That would be fine, Your Honor. That would be fine.
JUDGE CANNONE: So it's an instruction, not me commenting on the evidence --
MR. JACKSON: Understood.
JUDGE CANNONE: -- and saying this is the evidence.
MR. JACKSON: As long as I have the room to do it in cross, then I have no problem with that.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you have any objection to me just saying that when we come back out?
MR. LALLY: No.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's what I'm going to say.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: Regarding the experts, let's -- have you heard from anybody as to when they're available?
MR. JACKSON: We're about to turn our cell phones on. My cell phone is off during the jury session.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. What makes sense -- I think this is going to take more than half a day, and nothing -- and it happens in every trial. Nothing has taken the time we thought, and it's important. So I'm going to once again tell the jury they have a day off this week. I prefer to do Thursday because then at least they have testimony on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. They have at least the semblance of a full week. So I'd like you to tell your experts Thursday.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let us make the phone calls then --
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: -- and see what we can do.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. We'll do our best effort.
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on. Does that screw up any witnesses you're flying in or anything?
MR. LALLY: So that's what I was just starting to think is we have Bode people flying in on Thursday. But if --
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you want to do this Wednesday then? We just need to get it done.
MR. JACKSON: I just have to see if I can get the three witnesses.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right.
MR. JACKSON: One's coming in from California and the other two are from Pennsylvania.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: But I'll do my level best.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: What order --
JUDGE CANNONE: If you can do Wednesday, you can do Wednesday, but just I need to tell the jury today.
MR. JACKSON: Right.
JUDGE CANNONE: And your witness I'm sure you -- will be made available -- I'm sure they'll be available, but the Bode people testify all over the country, right?
MR. JACKSON: Right.
MR. LALLY: I mean, what I can say is I don't anticipate, you know, not knowing cross, but I don't anticipate their testimony being very lengthy at all. We can probably do them in a couple of hours if --
JUDGE CANNONE: But that still puts us in half a day time. I cannot image these voir dires taking a half a day.
MR. JACKSON: May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Can we stipulate to Bode? Is there any reason why we can't stipulate to Bode?
MR. LALLY: I -- no.
MR. JACKSON: You cannot.
MR. LALLY: No.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I'm -- I am taking a recess.
MR. JACKSON: Thanks, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Forty-five minutes.
(Court in recess.)
(Court in session.)
(Defendant is present with counsel.)
(Jury in.)
JUDGE CANNONE: So, jurors, before we begin, Mr. Lally, as you approach the podium there. When I tell you that I strike something from the record, I know I've told you before, that means you're not consider it. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. LALLY: (By Mr. Lally) Good afternoon, sir.
MR. PROCTOR: Good afternoon, sir.
MR. LALLY: So with reference to I believe before we broke we were talking little bit about Julie Albert and Christopher Albert, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And how would you describe your relationship, if any, between Julie Albert and Christopher Albert prior to January 29, 2022?
MR. PROCTOR: Loose acquaintances.
MR. LALLY: People that you knew through your sister; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to the occasions that you had said where you may have been at the same place at the same time at a family function or something like that, over what period of time are we talking about and about how many different instances of that occurred over those years?
MR. PROCTOR: Like I mentioned, they had never been over to my house. So it was either at my sister's home or my parents' house over the course of maybe ten years. I might've been at the same function a half a dozen times.
MR. LALLY: And at those times that you were at the same function a half a dozen times or so, how much interaction would you have with either Christopher Albert or Julie Albert or even Colin Albert at those functions?
MR. PROCTOR: Just casual conversation. It would be cordial and just typical conversations, you know, hi, how's it going, things of that nature.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to these experiences or relationships or lack thereof that you have with Christopher and Julie Albert, what, if any, conversations did you have with your supervisors as far as superior officers within your unit in regard to this?
MR. PROCTOR: I explained the connection or with my sister to the Albert family.
MR. LALLY: And who did you explain that to, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: That would be Sergeant Bukhenik, Lieutenant Fanning, and Detective Lieutenant Tully.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Trooper, I'm going to ask you to keep your voice up. Maybe approach the microphone a little bit closer.
MR. LALLY: And just with respect to those disclosures, what specifically did you tell either Sergeant Bukhenik or Lieutenant Fanning or Lieutenant Tully?
MR. PROCTOR: Basically, that there's -- that the Alberts are my sister's friends, that I've been at some functions with them, and the only kind of connection with the Albert family is through my sister.
MR. LALLY: And just when you say the Alberts as far as, who specifically within the Alberts are you talking about that had a friendship with your sister?
MR. PROCTOR: Julie, Chris, and their son Colin.
MR. LALLY: Now, with regard to the investigation that you were conducting and the interviews that you conducted, what, if any, impact did that -- those relationships have with regard to your interviews of them specifically or the investigation in total?
MR. PROCTOR: Zero. Absolutely zero impact on this investigation.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Sir, I'm showing you a document. Do you recognize that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize it to be?
MR. PROCTOR: It's a text message thread labeled Proctor friends.
MR. LALLY: Now, over the course of your investigation over the course of this case, are you aware that there were iCloud data that was obtained from your personal cell phone?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And different text strings from that iCloud data from your personal cell phone, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to what has just placed before you, is that an excerpt or a piece from those particular messages?
MR. PROCTOR: It is.
MR. LALLY: And from the front page of that, can you tell the jury who are sort of the participants in this particular text communication?
MR. PROCTOR: There's several numbers that aren't identified. The three that are our under kind of nicknames me and my buddies have for each other.
MR. LALLY: And generally speaking just as far as the participants in this text communication, who are these people to you and how do you know them, how long have you known them, who are they?
MR. PROCTOR: The members on this text thread are close friends from junior high, first grade even.
MR. LALLY: So people you've known for years; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And do each of them live or do any of them live within the general area at this time?
MR. PROCTOR: Some of them do, yes.
MR. LALLY: And so when some them do and some them do not; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And the ones that do not, how far away do they live?
MR. PROCTOR: As far away as Tennessee.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to this, there's an indication as far as the first message sent or last message sent from this particular text chain, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm sorry. Repeat the question, please.
MR. LALLY: Sure. Sort of towards the middle of the first page, I direct your attention to that area. Is there any indication as far as the first message sent and the last message sent with respect to this text chain?
MR. PROCTOR: On the first page, yes.
MR. LALLY: And what is indicated as far as the first message and the last message?
MR. PROCTOR: The first message is, "I need to brandish a gun more often." The last is, "Chip. Name of that BPD cop."
MR. LALLY: No, I'm sorry, sir. If I could direct your attention to the first page in this packet, page 2527. Do you see conversation details?
MR. LALLY: I'm sorry, Your Honor. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: If I could direct your attention to right.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Do you see was I was talking about now?
MR. PROCTOR: I do, sir.
MR. LALLY: And from that area labeled conversation details, there's a first message sent, date and time and a last message sent, date and time, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Okay. And what is the first message sent, date and time?
MR. PROCTOR: It's 10/18 of 2021 at 8:48 a.m. The last message sent is 8/31/2022 at 11:19 p.m.
MR. LALLY: And is there also within that conversation details and indication as far as number of messages over that time frame within this communication?
MR. PROCTOR: There is.
MR. LALLY: And what does it list for number of messages?
MR. PROCTOR: It's 38,707.
MR. LALLY: And fair to say the packet that you have before you does not contain all 38,707 messages, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: The first message that you had I believe alluded to in reference to the first one listed within this communication, what date and time is that?
MR. PROCTOR: That was January 29, 2022, at 10:36 p.m.
MR. LALLY: And who is that message from?
MR. PROCTOR: My friend who lives in Tennessee.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, did he send to the group?
MR. PROCTOR: I need to brandish a gun more often.
MR. LALLY: And if you know, what is that in reference to?
MR. PROCTOR: He just recently moved to Tennessee and he was kind of I think making a joke kind of the lifestyle down there where guns are more prominent or more common to be carried around there. So I interpreted that as a joke in that nature.
MR. LALLY: And the next message, sir, from that same page 2527.
MR. PROCTOR: The next one is, "It's bold."
MR. LALLY: And is there a name associated with that number that's in these?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: And do you know who that person is?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't.
MR. LALLY: In the next message, sir, from 10:52 p.m.?
MR. PROCTOR: "Chip, name of that BPD cop."
MR. LALLY: And chip, who is that referring to, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: That is one of my nicknames I've had since maybe high school.
MR. LALLY: So a nickname that would be familiar amongst these group of friends in particular?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And this time period when these text messages begin sometime after 10:30 or 10:50 p.m. on January 29, where are you and what are you doing in reference around that time period?
MR. PROCTOR: At this point in time on the 29th, I'm home.
MR. LALLY: And that last text message, do you respond to that at approximately 10:53 p.m.?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what was your response?
MR. PROCTOR: “John O'Keefe.”
MR. LALLY: And the next message down from there also at 10:53 p.m.?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. “He took custody of his kids sister's kids.”
MR. LALLY: That's your response. There is another response above that; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what does that say?
MR. PROCTOR: "How old?"
MR. LALLY: And you respond as far as he took custody of sister's kids, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Skipping down a couple. Do you see an entry at 10:53:49 p.m.?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that's from a 617 number; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what is the response there?
MR. PROCTOR: “Oh, man. That's rough.”
MR. LALLY: And following that, do you respond to the earlier query as far as age?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. LALLY: And what did you say?
MR. PROCTOR: “Mid-40s.”
MR. LALLY: Now, the next message below that as far as indication of mid-40s, what is that?
MR. PROCTOR: His age.
MR. LALLY: No, I understand that. I'm sorry. The next message underneath that, sir.
MR. PROCTOR: I'm sorry. It's a Facebook link.
MR. LALLY: And do you recall what that Facebook link is to?
MR. PROCTOR: It's to John O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: And is that something you sent or one your friends sent?
MR. PROCTOR: One of my friends sent.
MR. LALLY: And the next message below turning to now page 2529 at the top there. What is the next message that's sent?
MR. PROCTOR: "What's that? Don't have the book anymore."
MR. LALLY: And as far as the book, what did you understand that to mean?
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
(Sidebar commences:
MR. JACKSON: My objection is relevance as it's coming in through the Commonwealth. If this is impeachment for bias, how is Mr. Lally going to go through all of these text messages?
JUDGE CANNONE: What do you say about that, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: If there's a Bowden defense, if there's an attack on this witness's credibility, which has been done prior to this witness even getting on the stand through almost every single witness that has come up, I think it's relevant as to impute that bias or at least to demonstrate exactly what that bias is, if anything.
MR. JACKSON: He doesn't get to impeach his own witness.
MR. LALLY: I'm not --
MR. JACKSON: He doesn't get to impeach --
MR. LALLY: Bias isn't impeachment.
MR. JACKSON: Excuse me. What he's trying to do is lance the bullet.
JUDGE CANNONE: Take the sting out.
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you have an extra -- do you have an extra copy? I didn't print them out. I read them again yesterday. I didn't print it out. Do you have an extra copy?
MR. LALLY: I just have a copy for myself and the witness.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Do we have an extra copy? We have one for me, one for the witness.
MS. LITTLE: I can give that to you now as long as we get it back.
JUDGE CANNONE: That would be helpful. Do you intend to go through every single one?
MR. LALLY: No, no. Not every single one. I'm just laying a foundation as far as this communication goes and I'm getting into specific ones, and then moving onto others.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah, and of course the specific ones are the ones he wants to take the sting out of and it's completely inappropriate.
JUDGE CANNONE: But I don't know that yet. Are they?
MR. JACKSON: But I'm asking -- I'm asking the Court to stop him from impeaching his own witness to take the stand. It is irrelevant for purposes of bias. The Commonwealth can't impeach their witness, and this text stream is one that has exceedingly biased information in it, and so, Mr. Lally, says, no, I'm just going to do a few of them. The few of them that he's going to go through are going to be the most serious in terms of this witness's prejudice and bias against my client. It's improper for him to do it in advance.
JUDGE CANNONE: What do you say?
MR. LALLY: I don't think it's at all improper for me to do in advance. As far as -- it goes to this witness's course of his investigation, it goes to, again as I stated before, this is, you know, if we're coming at this clean, and there had been no attack on this witness's credibility or his bias or anything else that had been presented prior to or taking the stand of this trial, I might see more of a point to what Mr. Jackson is saying, but given what's gone on throughout the course of the trial, I think it's more than fair and appropriate for the witness to explain.
MR. JACKSON: He has to explain this under cross- examination. The fact that he attacked his credibility is exactly why Mr. Lally cannot, the Commonwealth cannot --
JUDGE CANNONE: So what I need -- I'm going to give the jury a five-minute break. I need to read them and see. We'll give them a ten-minute break. So if you could give that to me, that would be helpful.
MR. JACKSON: Immediately.
end of sidebar.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Jurors, we're going to take a ten- minute break.
(Jury out.)
JUDGE CANNONE: So do you have that copy for me?
MS. LITTLE: I do. I just --
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
end of sidebar.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Ten-minute break. Okay.
(Jury out.)
JUDGE CANNONE: So do you have that copy for me?
(Court in recess.)
(Court in session.)
(Defendant is present with counsel.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't you all come over again.
COURT OFFICER: Folks, remain standing. Jurors are coming in. Please stand.
(Jury in.)
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So I'm overruling the objection. You can go ahead and make -- you can go ahead and make your record.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, it appears that the Commonwealth is taking a tactical approach to improper and not allowed under the evidence code by presenting evidence that is completely irrelevant to the Commonwealth's case in chief and irrelevant to this witness --
end of sidebar.)
COURT OFFICER: You may be seated. Court's now back in session.
(Sidebar commences:
MR. JACKSON: -- irrelevant to this witness pursuant to their direct examination. If I choose to cross-examine him, this witness on issues of bias, then re-direct examination is the appropriate mechanism by which the Commonwealth can and try to rehabilitate him. But for them to go through and literally they've just been arguing that he's unbiased in his direct examination. Then they try to show all of the bias in order to, as the Court said earlier, to take the sting out it. That's an improper use of direct examination for their purposes. For this purpose, it is completely irrelevant. We don't get to call the witness for the purpose of impeaching him in order to keep the opponent, the other side, from being able to impeach that witness. If they go through all of these text messages, all of these date books, then the Court can expect I'm going to go through every single one of those again. It's a waste of time. It's a waste of judicial resources, and it's irrelevant for purposes of the Commonwealth's presentation.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. What do you want to say just to complete the record?
MR. LALLY: Just to complete the record, Your Honor, what I would say is that from the very first words out of Mr. Yanetti's mouth in his opening statement that his client was framed, that's essentially been the posture of defense.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So talk about the evidence.
MR. LALLY: No, and what I'm saying is that dovetails into the evidence as far as almost every Single witness has been asked questions about this witness and about this witness's purported bias or about this witness's, you know, lack of integrity in the investigation, so on and so forth, and, you know, suggestions there was planted evidence, suggestions that he's, you know, very early on focused on the defendant and this is, you know, information related to that that I think is entirely relevant based on the fact that the defendant has put it out there.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. All right. So your objection is overruled. [REDACTED]
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Did you get -- while we're here, did you hear back from your experts?
MR. JACKSON: I did. I did. So I got a hold of Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Rentschler. They're going to try to text me before the end of the day and see if they can come and be available on Wednesday. They're not positive. I said give a second date of Friday, potentially, maybe even Monday. Just give me some options. They said they would. And I then contacted Dr. Russell. She said, "I think I can catch a flight Wednesday night for Friday." But she cannot be here Wednesday because she's got some --
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: And with Dr. -- Dr. Vanee, he said, "T think I can make either Wednesday or Friday work." He's closer.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Any idea what works for the Commonwealth?
MR. LALLY: Well, I mean so I would suggest having Thursday that would be problematic.
JUDGE CANNONE: Right. So Thursday. So Mr. Jackson is trying to see about Wednesday and Friday to accommodate you not being able to do Thursday.
MR. LALLY: The other issue is Ms. Hyde is flying in Thursday to testify Friday.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So we have to do Wednesday.
MR. JACKSON: The only thing I would say, and I wanted to put this on the record and see if I could throw myself on the mercy of the Court --
end of sidebar.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Sorry, folks, this will be two more minutes.
(Sidebar commences:
MR. JACKSON: I'll make it very quick. This is probably going to cost the defense anywhere between fifteen, eighteen, maybe more thousand dollars to get them out here, all of them out here and back. If there's any way that the Court could see clear of doing this when we start -- before we start our case in chief, that would allow us to bring everybody out here one time, voir dire, and if they're allowed they can testify right then rather than roundtrips back and forth. It's just silly.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll think about it, but no notice had been given. I understand you say your hands are tied on that. The biomechanical engineers or particularly this doctor from California or the last doctor. All right. Let's go back and start this case?
(Overlapping discussion.)
MS. LITTLE: Sorry. I just need --
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So I need Mr. McDermott to go make a copy real quick. So which ones? Do you need them all back right now? I would have printed them. Which ones are you --
MS. LITTLE: You can keep them for right now as long I can get them back before we start.
JUDGE CANNONE: Oh, yeah. You'll definitely -- I don't think you'll start today.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
MS. LITTLE: No problem.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
end of sidebar.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Can we get the witness back, please.
MR. LALLY: May I proceed, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Trooper, if I could direct you back to page 2529 within that packet before you. And below that text stating, "What's that? I don't have the book anymore," you respond; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what is it that you say there?
MR. PROCTOR: "This one is a nightmare. Give up the kids. That's awful."
MR. LALLY: And, sir, if I could direct your attention again within that same packet to 2532. And there's a message there sent at 10:56 p.m.; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And who is that from?
MR. PROCTOR: A friend who lives in Tennessee.
MR. LALLY: And what does he say in that text?
MR. PROCTOR: "I'm sure the owner of the house will receive some shit."
MR. LALLY: And you respond at 10:56 as well as 10:57; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what is it that you respond?
MR. PROCTOR: My first response is, "Nope. Homeowner is a Boston cop, too."
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, were you saying or what was the purpose of that text in regard to the homeowner?
MR. PROCTOR: I was just letting him know that essentially Mr. O'Keefe is a Boston cop and the homeowner was a Boston cop as well.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could turn your attention to 2533. And the top of the page, sir, if you could read through that page as far as who's texting and what do they say?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, from my friend from Tennessee and myself. "T hope not, but I can't see it." I responded with, "She waffled him. I looked at his body at the hospital. He was banged up."
MR. LALLY: Now as far as the next text from a 781 number?
MR. PROCTOR: Mm-hmm.
MR. LALLY: What does that say?
MR. PROCTOR: "Did he get beat up?"
MR. LALLY: And you responded to that; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: The objection is sustained as to form.
MR. LALLY: What, if any, response did you provide to that?
MR. PROCTOR: "Nope."
MR. JACKSON: Objection. Your Honor, the objection was to the form of the question and the answer.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll strike it.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Now, turning your attention to 2534. And from this page, sir, if you could again just read through as far as indicating to the jury who's speaking and what is being said.
MR. PROCTOR: From the start of the first text to the owner of the house?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
MR. PROCTOR: "So the owner of the house was a woman cop that beat him. That's what I initially thought after talking to Canton paramedic then I saw the guy.
MR. LALLY: And those last two are your responses; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now the following text messages are from your friend; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: What do they say?
MR. PROCTOR: "Yeah, let's focus. What does she waffle the mean? What's the story?" I responded, "She hit him with her car."
MR. LALLY: And the she that you're referring to there, who is that?
MR. PROCTOR: Ms. Read.
MR. LALLY: Now turning your attention to the next page 2535. Again, if you could start at the top of the page and read through that page and just indicate to the jury who is talking and what is being said.
MR. PROCTOR: My friend in Tennessee states, "Okay. That's fucked up." I respond, "Intentional or not," and then add another response, "Gotcha. He was frozen in the driveway and she didn't see him? That's another animal we won't be able to prove." And then I respond, "They arrived at the house together, got into an argument."
MR. JACKSON: I need to speak out loud or ata turn.
JUDGE CANNONE: The objection's overruled.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor --
JUDGE CANNONE: But --
MR. JACKSON: If I could say this, there needs to be an identifier who's --
JUDGE CANNONE: And I understand what you think the mix-up is. So, Mr. Lally, go back.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Sir, if you could, please again start at the top of the page and just indicate --
JUDGE CANNONE: No, just after the, "Gotcha. He was frozen in the driveway," correct, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: That's correct, Your Honor. Thank you.
MR. PROCTOR: I respond, "That's another animal we won't be able to prove." I followed that up, "They arrived at the house together, got into an argument. She was driving and left." Seven-eight-one number responds with, "What's the name of the Canton cop living in Canton, the other one involved?"
MR. LALLY: And how do you respond to that, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: There's several other messages before I issue a response.
MR. JACKSON: Objection, again. Follow the page.
JUDGE CANNONE: So it's not an objection, but, Mr. Lally, why don't you point him.
MR. LALLY: So, sir, at the bottom of page 2535, you have a response; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what is that response?
MR. PROCTOR: "They arrived at the house together, got into an argument, she was driving and left."
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: So it's going to be a matter you can address on cross.
MR. JACKSON: There has to be some accuracy. The reading --
JUDGE CANNONE: So I understand. So, Mr. Lally, why don't you go point for your witness.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. A Okay. It's an HTML link. It's whiteout/proctor/icloud/groupchat/feb2022. Is that what you're pointing at?
JUDGE CANNONE: Can I see what you have a second, please?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally, it's on there. Why don't you go show your witness. Why don't you just read it, Mr. Lally, and tell us who you attribute it to.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
MR. LALLY: So, sir, what I'm asking you about is at the bottom of page 2535 -- excuse me -- 26 -- 2535. You indicated biffed(ph) him, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what did you mean by that?
MR. PROCTOR: That Ms. Read had struck Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could direct your attention to page 2537. Now, do you see a response towards the bottom of the page from yourself January 29, 2022, at 11:04 p.m.?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you read that response for the jury?
MR. PROCTOR: "Yeah, but there will be some serious charges brought on the girl."
MR. LALLY: And what did you mean by that, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: That throughout the course of the day, we had compelling evidence that Ms. Read struck Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle.
MR. LALLY: And you have two responses from friends. The same friends at the bottom of that page 2537; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And what are those responses?
JUDGE CANNONE: Keep your voice up loud, please, Trooper Proctor. Jurors can't hear you.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. PROCTOR: Number ending in 5051, "Got to be. I can only imagine what internal affairs of the BPD are trying to get out there." And the second response same number, "She hot at least?"
MR. LALLY: And turning your attention to the next page 2538 at the top, top if you could just read a series of responses from yourself, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: Could you read from those, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: Yep. So these came from me. "From all accounts, he didn't anything wrong. She's a whack job, C-U-N-T."
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: So don't spell it. You have to -- so these are your words, Trooper Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead and say them. A Cunt. "Yes, she's a babe with a Fall River accent, though. Though no ass."
MR. LALLY: And, sir, what is it that you were referring to there, or why would you text that?
MR. PROCTOR: These were, from all accounts he didn't do anything wrong, is talking about the homeowner Mr. Albert. I had mentioned the compelling evidence against Ms. Read at this point, indicated that Mr. Albert had nothing to do with Mr. O'Keefe's death. The rest of the unprofessional and regrettable comments are something I'm not proud of, and I shouldn't have wrote in the private or any type of setting.
MR. LALLY: Sir, at some point if I could turn your attention to page 2540. And there's a photograph that's shared within this text communication; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And does it indicate who shared that photograph? From the prior page, possibly.
MR. PROCTOR: The number ending in 5051.
MR. LALLY: And who is depicted in that photograph that was shared within the group text?
MR. PROCTOR: It's Ms. Read being escorted out of the state police Milton barracks.
MR. LALLY: And these are all from February 1st of 2022, around that time frame; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could direct you to page 2543. And, sir, if I could direct you to the top of the page and ask you to read through that page indicating who's speaking and what the content of those communications were?
MR. PROCTOR: The number ending in 4146 questioned, "Is that chick a smoke?" Again, 4146, question mark. I respond, "Eh." I respond again, "Nut bag as chief would say." I also respond with, "She's got a balloon knot. It leaks poo."
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, is that in reference to?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, to Ms. Read's some medical conditions there. Again, unprofessional comment I should not have made, and I'm not proud of.
MR. LALLY: As far as attitudes expressed within these text messages and other text messages, what, if any, impact did that have as far as your investigation was concerned regarding Ms. Read?
MR. PROCTOR: These juvenile, unprofessional comments have zero impact on the facts and the evidence and the integrity of this investigation. I said these unprofessional comments, but they absolutely do not detract from the integrity of the investigation or the facts and evidence of it.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach just to retrieve?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, Trooper Proctor, contained within these same text messages amongst yourself and a variety of different people from that same sort of iCloud era of your personal phone, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And among those on there are communications that you had with members of the Canton Police Department?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And how would you characterize or what was the general contents of communications that you had with members of the Canton Police Department?
MR. PROCTOR: One communication was to coordinate interview times for firefighters and police officers and to set up a conference room where those interviews could be conducted. Obviously, the presence of Canton detectives or any police officers were not going to be sitting in on these interviews. Another communication was to inquire of relevant security videos that are in the area, their local department, they know the area very well, so I had reached out and asked if there some good cameras in the area that I had kind of an interest in.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: I'm showing you another document. Do you recognize that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: What do you recognize that to be, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: Text communications between my sister and I.
MR. LALLY: And that's your sister Courtney; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And similar to what I had asked you about the prior packet as far as a first message sent, date and time, last message sent, date and time, what is indicated on this first page?
MR. PROCTOR: First message sent date time December 10, 2021, at 9:33 p.m. Last message sent 8/30, 2022 at 8:48 p.m.
MR. LALLY: And 8/30, that's August 30; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm sorry. Yes, August 30, 2022.
MR. LALLY: And similar to the other messages, is there an indication as far as how many number of messages were sent between yourself and your sister over that time period?
MR. PROCTOR: Two thousand eight hundred and sixty-five.
MR. LALLY: And fair to say that the documents in front of you do not contain 2,865 messages?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, just in reference to the first message on page 2662, the first page in this packet. Do you see that from December 10th of 2021, at approximately 9:33 p.m.?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what does that indicate?
MR. PROCTOR: A text message from my sister.
MR. LALLY: And what does it say?
MR. PROCTOR: "I called earlier. Dolf(ph) earlier and Mom was puking in the background."
MR. LALLY: And do you recall what that was in regard to?
MR. PROCTOR: It sounds like my mother had a stomach bug.
MR. LALLY: And, sir, if I could direct your attention to page 2667. in these text messages from January 29, 2022, between yourself and your sister Courtney, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And if you could read from the top of the page through the end, and please indicate to the jury as far as who's talking and who's saying what.
MR. PROCTOR: So I texted my sister at work, "What's up?" She responds, "What? Why?" I respond, "Oh, just found a frozen to death on a front lawn in Canton this morning. Actually just interviewed Jen McCabe. Says she knows you."
MR. LALLY: And knows you, who are you referring to?
MR. PROCTOR: My sister.
MR. LALLY: And how did your sister respond to that?
MR. PROCTOR: "Cut the shit." I responded, "You," and there was a typo correction with my response to you. She responded, "Yeah, she knows Jack very well. She's really good friends with Julie." My sister continues on, “Her sister is married to Brian Albert." My sister asks, "Are you still working?" I says, "Yup, yup. Going to be out for a while on a homicide."
MR. LALLY: And as far as your answers to those questions or as far as your communications that you had with your Sister at this time on the afternoon of January 29, what were those in regard to or why were you communicating that to your sister?
MR. PROCTOR: At that time, it was just in the news. I was just kind learning all this while I was working. I obviously didn't share anything specific. I wouldn't share anything specific on cases with my family or anyone. It was just kind of an overall innocent conversation.
MR. LALLY: Now, turning your attention to the next page 2669. Again, if you could you read from that page as far who was talking and what the content is?
MR. PROCTOR: All right. My sister starts off, "The Canton thing is a homicide." I respond and this is at 3:00 in the afternoon on the 29th, "Don't say a word to anyone." She said, "Of course not." I respond, "And the very least, it's suspicious." She responds, "This is your livelihood and then I would never mess with that." Three-oh-seven I respond, "Julie and Chris were at the bar with the victim and girlfriend. Got to interview them."
MR. LALLY: I'd like to direct your attention to page 2672. And these are messages from February 1, 2022; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And the one at the top starts about February 1, 5:57 p.m.; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And again if you could read through as far as who's speaking and what the contents of those messages are?
MR. PROCTOR: I texted my sister, "What's up." She responded, "Nothing. I just saw Julie and she said when this is all over she wants to get you a thank you gift," and I respond, "Get Elizabeth one." Elizabeth's my wife. And my sister responds, "Because I guess her and Chris were friends with John and she's so proud of you for leading this." And then she writes, "Elizabeth?" I respond with, "She's been stuck with the kids for the last ten nights." My sister responded with, "Yeah, but she knew what life was like married to a cop."
MR. LALLY: And, sir, as far as the gift that's mentioned as far as Julie Albert, is that anything that you have received at any point in time?
MR. PROCTOR: I never received a gift. I never asked for a gift. My wife never received a gift. She never asked for a gift.
MR. LALLY: How would you describe this context of this conversation or why that's being discussed at this time?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, I don't know the thought process of my Sister and Julie as far as bringing that idea into -- of a gift into play. Like I said, I didn't ask for one, I never received one, the same with my wife.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could turn your attention to 2676. And, again, if I could ask you to start at the top of the page and read through and just indicate as far as who's saying -- who is speaking and what they're talking about.
MR. PROCTOR: I start out, "We write like eight to twelve warrants on each case." My sister responded, "No, I have no idea what the hell you do or how it works." And I responded on the 10th at 7:36 p.m., "I'm starving but I also just want to go home. Thanks, though." My sister responds, "Yeah, but is dinner going to be waiting." She responded with, "Ha-ha-ha." Then I responded, "Yep," and then my sister responded with, "Okay. It's fine. Mom and I just don't want to go home."
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Showing you another document. Do you recognize that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize that to be?
MR. PROCTOR: This is private messages between my wife and I.
MR. LALLY: Again, what is your wife's name?
MR. PROCTOR: Elizabeth.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, does that indicate as far as dates and times and the number of messages involved?
MR. PROCTOR: So the first message sent 5/20/2022 at 6:19 p.m. The last message sent 8/31/2022 at 9:16 p.m.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, indication does it give as far as number of messages within that text chain?
MR. PROCTOR: One thousand six hundred and thirty-two.
MR. LALLY: And of those 1,162, there's one message that's listed on that; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what is the date and time of that message and what does it say and who's speaking?
MR. PROCTOR: This is me speaking on June 9, 2022 at 4:56 p.m. I text my wife, "We're going to lock this whack job up."
MR. LALLY: And what are you referring in that text, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm referring to the arrest after Ms. Read was indicted by the grand jury.
MR. LALLY: And again as far as the terminology that you use in that text message to your wife, why is that?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, unprofessional messages I should not have sent. I don't have an explanation other than they're regrettable and it's something I'm not proud of the language I used.
MR. LALLY: May I approach to retrieve, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. All right. So, Trooper Proctor, the jurors can't hear you. So speak directly into your microphone the way I'm doing, okay?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. JACKSON: May we approach?
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: So while we're here, Ms. Little, I'll give you back three of the ones. I appreciate that. What do you have, Mr. Lally, which one is this? Okay.
MR. JACKSON: This particular set of text messages is not something I was intending to use. It does not have anything to do with bias. It basically lays out self-serving comments by him and his family about Karen Read's guilt, the fact that she was drunk, the fact that she is the person who did it. Basically, a character assassinate. She's guilty. They talk about the GoFundMe pages for the family.
JUDGE CANNONE: So we have the document in front of us. We can do pages -- based on the fact that the defendant does not intend to get anything in here, how do you think you can get this in, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: I can move on. That's fine.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: I don't need to.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So there's that.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. That was easy. This is your copy.
MR. LALLY: No, this is my copy.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, so it's ours. Okay. Thanks.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
end of sidebar.)
MR. LALLY: Now, Trooper Proctor, are you familiar with conversations that within these same text communications from your personal phone with colleagues of yours at the state police?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And, Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I have a moment with counsel?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Showing you another document, sir. Before I get into that, though, if I could, I'd turn your attention back to some of the comments on the language used in the January 29, and February 1, or 2, text communications among your friend group. With reference to that particular time frame and the language that you used, what sort of information had you gathered to that point, and why would you say or use that particular language in your -- particularly in your descriptions of the defendant?
MR. PROCTOR: This was, you know, 16, 18 hours later, and we -- I conducted multiple interviews.
JUDGE CANNONE: Speak up. A Conducted multiple interviews. We knew Mr. O'Keefe never went into Fairview Road. We knew there was one shoe at the scene, one shoe at the hospital. Mr. O'Keefe, based off Mr. O'Keefe's injuries, Ms. Read's statements when Sergeant Bukhenik and I interviewed her, her broken taillight, the missing taillight, some taillight pieces found at the scene, the compelling evidence pointing directly at Ms. Read that she struck Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle, led me make to those comments. Whether, like I said it was not professional comments, but based on the day's investigation, it was clear that Ms. Read had struck Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle.
MR. LALLY: Sir, if I could turn your attention to the documents before you. Do you recognize those?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the participants in that particular conversation, who were the participants listed there?
MR. PROCTOR: It's Trooper David DiCicco and myself.
MR. LALLY: And Trooper DiCicco and yourself both work within the same unit of the state police; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And beyond the professional relationship you have with yourself -- between yourself and Trooper DiCicco, how would you characterize your relationship generally speaking?
MR. PROCTOR: We're buddies, you know, we golf together, hang outside of work, you know, our kids play together. I'd, you know, we're friends.
MR. LALLY: Now within the -- again, as far as the first message sent, date and time, and last message sent, date and time within this conversation, if you could describe that for the jury?
MR. PROCTOR: First message sent, date and time, March 17, 2022, 11:08 a.m. Last message sent, date and time, August 18, 2022, 6:08 a.m.
MR. LALLY: And again the number of messages listed within this text chain?
MR. PROCTOR: Eighty-seven.
MR. LALLY: And fair to say the documents before you do not contain 87 text messages, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct, sir.
MR. LALLY: Now just in general terms if you have an opportunity to just look at the first couple of pages there. Fair to say those were just sort of jokes that you have going back and forth between yourself and Trooper DiCicco; is that fair to say?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could turn your attention specifically to page 2632. And these are text messages starting on April 28, 2022, at 10:52 in the morning; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm sorry. What was the time again, sir?
MR. LALLY: April 28, 2022, 10:52 a.m.?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, correct.
MR. LALLY: And again, sir, with reference to this page, if you could read the content to the jury and please indicate who is speaking at each respective times.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay. I start out with, "Without a doubt, he's got diarrhea of the mouth, too." Trooper DiCicco, "Rookie move not getting -- not going into a meeting with the M.E. and getting that homicide determination." I respond, "Yuri and I had two conference calls with her, sent her numerous photos, et cetera. We laid out the entire case for her." Trooper DiCicco responds, "Not good enough. Should've had me or Jeff do it." I respond, "If you two did it, she would have made it accidental or natural causes."
MR. LALLY: And can you explain the context of those communications or what exactly is it that you and Trooper DiCicco are talking about in that communication?
MR. PROCTOR: Okay. So the M.E. is the medical examiner. They conducted the autopsy of Mr. O'Keefe. Within our office, it's kind of --
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on. Wait for the ambulance and then speak up. The jurors can't hear you way back where the court officer is standing. A So like I said, the M.E. stands for medical examiner. They conducted the autopsy of Mr. O'Keefe. I guess I'll address the conference calls. Sergeant Bukhenik and I had with the medical examiner. The doctor had some questions as to the facts in evidence, kind of what had transpired which is common, you know, even if it's a homicide, I've had many calls with the medical examiner's office, even if it's a suicidal overdose always, almost -- I wouldn't say almost -- always with a homicide, the doctor wants to know what transpired. Trooper DiCicco and myself we kind of like to bust each other chops, go back and forth. So that's what he meant by saying, "Rookie move not going into a meeting with the M.E. and getting that homicide determination." The original determination came back --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Next question, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as attending the autopsy, is that something that typically someone within your office would do -- within your unit would do with regard to any sort of death investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And do you know who attended the autopsy of Mr. O'Keefe in this specific particular case?
MR. PROCTOR: Trooper Connor Keefe.
MR. LALLY: And so as far as Trooper DiCicco's reference to you not going in or Sergeant Bukhenik not going in, is that what you believed Trooper DiCicco was referring to in that message?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained as to the form.
MR. LALLY: You indicated that you and Trooper DiCicco bust each other's chops; is that fair to say?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you describe a little more, expound upon that as far as the nature of your relationship, and sort of the text messages that you exchanged on this and any other communications that you had?
MR. PROCTOR: Basically just, you know, kind of needling each other and him doing that is by saying texting me, "Rookie move not going into the meeting with the medical examiner." So that's a perfect example of him kind of just needling me, which we do on a daily basis.
MR. LALLY: And as far as your interpretation of that, did you interpret that as a serious comment or something said in jest?
MR. PROCTOR: I interpreted that as a typical joke from Trooper DiCicco.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach to retrieve?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Showing you another document. Asking if you recognize that.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: What do you recognize that to be?
MR. PROCTOR: Text messages between myself and Trooper DiCicco.
MR. LALLY: And again, what is the first message sent, date and time, last message sent, date and time, the number of messages contained therein?
MR. PROCTOR: First message sent, date and time, April 28, 2022 at 1:09 p.m. Last message sent, date and time, April 28, 2022, 4:45 p.m.
MR. LALLY: And the number of messages, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: Four.
MR. LALLY: And if you could, read the contents of those messages contained therein, and please indicate who's speaking.
MR. PROCTOR: So I start out, "Of course it's undetermined. She was a whack job." Trooper DiCicco responds, "Dear God. WTF. What the hell is inconclusive about the whole thing?"
MR. LALLY: And as far as your indication there as far as she was a whack job, who are you referring to there?
MR. PROCTOR: Ms. Read.
MR. LALLY: And now as far as the undetermined of what you're talking about, what is sort of the content or the context of this conversation?
MR. PROCTOR: That would be the manner of death was determined to be undetermined by the medical examiner's office.
MR. LALLY: And so I ask you again as far as your reference there at the bottom of the first page as far as she was a whack job, who do you believe you're referring to there?
MR. PROCTOR: Again --
MR. LALLY: Ms. Read or the medical examiner?
MR. PROCTOR: Ms. Read.
MR. LALLY: May I confer with co-counsel, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may we approach briefly on this packet?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jurors, feel free to stand up and stretch if you'd like.
(Sidebar commences:
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, there's portions of this that I have no problem with. There's portions that appear to be tabbed by Mr. Yanetti - I’m sorry - Mr. Lally that appear to be bad character evidence of the defendant and nothing more.
JUDGE CANNONE: So I did not see a copy of this today. That's okay.
MR. JACKSON: If we just -- there's only four tabs or three tabs. I think we can --
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't you tell us what you intend to get into with this witness, Mr. Lally. I did read this again yesterday. I know it's part of the exhibits of the grand jury.
MR. LALLY: Starting at --
JUDGE CANNONE: You have to keep your voice up.
MR. LALLY: Sure. Starting at the bottom of this page 2644, more references to medical condition. There is some reference to the statements that she made back at the Milton barracks, which is already in evidence.
JUDGE CANNONE: So now you're on page --
MR. LALLY: Two-six-four-five.
JUDGE CANNONE: So you intend to get into that whole page? Are you objecting to this?
MR. JACKSON: From -- I don't know what -- it was on BWC -- I don't know what that means.
JUDGE CANNONE: Body worn camera.
COURT REPORTER: I'm having trouble.
MR. JACKSON: Sorry. From the BWC coming down underneath it, I don't have any problem. And I was probably going to bring up some of this.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: It's the previous page that I think threw me off.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. On page 2644, what do you intend to get into, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Just the last -- his communication there.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow that.
MR. JACKSON: I don't care about that.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So the other two tabs, one tab?
MR. JACKSON: The other -- the last one goes --
JUDGE CANNONE: Page numbers?
MR. JACKSON: This is I think 2646. She seemed more concerned about --
JUDGE CANNONE: That's on the body worn camera, right? It's not in evidence right now. But that was something you saw?
MR. JACKSON: Well, no. It's a comment that he believes in his mind she's more concerned with her outfit than being arrested. That's just bad character and then he follows it with, "Fuck her and she's crooked."
JUDGE CANNONE: "She's cooked."
MR. JACKSON: Sorry. Sorry. Cooked.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Hold on.
MR. JACKSON: None of this is relevant.
JUDGE CANNONE: I agree on your case in chief those three lines on page 2646 cannot come in.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I mean, based on the representations, that's fine.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. All set?
MR. LALLY: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
end of sidebar.)
MR. LALLY: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Sir, handing you another set of documents. Could you view those and look up when you're finished. Do you recognize those, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And what do you recognize those to be?
MR. PROCTOR: Another text thread between myself, Trooper DiCicco, and Trooper Kotkowski.
MR. LALLY: And Trooper Kotkowski is another trooper within your unit in the state police; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And again if you could read from the first message sent, date and time, the last message sent, date and time.
MR. PROCTOR: First message sent, date and time 5/24/2022, 9:21 p.m. Last message sent, date and time 8/24/2022, 4:56 p.m.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the number of messages indicated within this text chain between yourself, Trooper Kotkowski, and Trooper DiCicco?
MR. PROCTOR: Four hundred and ninety-four.
MR. LALLY: Fair to say the documents before you do not contain 494 text messages, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Just in reference to that first page 2635, first message sent. That's May 24, 2022, around 9:21 p.m.; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that's a message sent from Trooper Kotkowski; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what is that?
MR. PROCTOR: It appears to be a picture of a toy Santa Claus.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could direct your attention to page 2644. If I could direct you to the bottom of the page, Sir. Do you see the text from yourself on June 9, 2022, at 11:19 p.m.?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Very bottom of the page.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach just to point it out?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, I see it, sir.
MR. LALLY: (Indicating. )
MR. PROCTOR: Okay.
MR. LALLY: If you could read what you wrote on June 9, 2022, around that time, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: "If you like women who shit themselves."
MR. LALLY: And again, sir, what is it that you're referring to there?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, a regrettable comment I made about Ms. Read's medical condition.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could direct you to the following page 2645. And, again, if you could read from that page as far as who is -- and indicate to the jury who is speaking and what is being said on page 2645.
MR. PROCTOR: I'm speaking right now. "The statement she made tonight at H7 was mental. Thank Christ it was on BWC," which is body worn camera. Trooper Kotkowski responds, "That's her. Smoke." Trooper Kotkowski again, "What did she say?" I respond, "Said the Alberts beat the shit out of O'Keefe, left him for dead and that's why her taillight was cracked. She's gross." Trooper DiCicco, "Oh, fuck her. Bitch."
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir.
MR. LALLY: May I approach to retrieve, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And, sir, with reference to that last bit as far as June 9, 2022, what was going on that day in reference to this matter again?
MR. PROCTOR: Ms. Read was being processed at the Milton barracks.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. If I may have just a moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Showing you another set of documents. Do you recognize those?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. LALLY: What do you recognize those to be?
MR. PROCTOR: Another text thread with members from my office, troopers.
MR. LALLY: And who are the troopers that are listed within that?
MR. PROCTOR: Trooper Chris Moore, Trooper Jeff Kotkowski, Lieutenant John Fanning, Trooper Dave DiCicco, and Yuriy Bukhenik.
MR. LALLY: And what is the first message sent, date and time?
MR. PROCTOR: That would be 5/26/2022 at 8:19 p.m. Last message sent, date and time 8/26/2022, 5:36 p.m.
MR. LALLY: And what is listed as far as the number of messages within this chain?
MR. PROCTOR: Six hundred and fifty-one.
MR. LALLY: And fair to say the documents before you do not contain all 651 of those messages within this chain; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could direct your attention to page 2682. Do you see a message sent from Trooper DiCicco on August 17, 2022 at 9:42 p.m.?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And is that an image contained on the next page which is 2683?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, it is.
MR. LALLY: And what is the image of?
MR. PROCTOR: That is a picture of Mr. Yanetti. It appears to be from quite some time ago.
MR. LALLY: Now turning your attention to the next page 2684. And there's a response from you August 17, 2022, at 9:44 p.m.; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Sorry, Sir. What's the date and time, again, please?
MR. LALLY: Sure. Page 2684, 8/17/2022, 9:44 p.m.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: You see there's like sort of three responses from you?
MR. PROCTOR: I have you now.
MR. LALLY: If you could just read the three responses from yourself, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: Okay. These came from me. "Funny. I'm going through his retarded client's phone. No nudes so far. I hate that man. I truly hate him."
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to the investigation, at this point when you're talking about his client's phone, who are you referring to?
MR. PROCTOR: Ms. Read.
MR. LALLY: And with regards to the phone at that point, can you describe for the jury sort of what's going on during this time period of August 17, 2022, in regard to Ms. Read's phone?
MR. PROCTOR: So after obtaining a search warrant for Ms. Read's phone, we were unable to extract any data from it until August of 2023. Troopers in my office knew I was going through the phone that evening. I was most interested in location data, text messages, Google searches. That was the update I gave the troopers in the office. It was a distasteful joke. I should have gave a proper update instead of that. I wasn't able to go through the phone as thoroughly as possible because I came across some -- a text between her attorney and Ms. Read. So I had to stop going through her phone, and I made my supervisor aware of those communications.
MR. LALLY: Now, just to reference what you had just said. This is in August of 2022; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: So after a search warrant is obtained for the defendant's phone, where did it go? You indicated communicate you gave it to Trooper Guarino, and where did it go from there?
MR. PROCTOR: Trooper Guarino essentially hooks it up to a device called Graykey where it tries every possible combination passcodes in order to access the data contained in the phone.
MR. LALLY: And at that time when you retrieved it pursuant to the search warrant, you didn't have the passcode to the defendant's phone; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: So that device was designed to sort of go through numbers and try to find a combination to get into the phone, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And so from the time that you had seized it in late January or on January 29, 2022, until this date in August of 2022, had you been able to get into the phone or see anything in the phone in those intervening months or seven months between January and August?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: And so then at this time that you're sending this text message in August of 2022, is that around the time that you were first able to access the phone?
MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, that was the first time we were able to have access to the phone.
MR. LALLY: And with reference to your access to the phone, were you looking for nudes or anything like that in regard to the defendant?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: No. As I stated, I was most interested in Ms. Read's location data, text communications, Google searches, things of that nature. More evidence contained within the phone.
MR. LALLY: And so, sir, you mentioned at some point you came across some information that caused you to sort of freeze you're looking through the phone; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And so as far as that specific time period in August of 2022, when was the next time that you or any troopers from your office were able to actually look at any extraction of the defendant's phone?
MR. PROCTOR: So once I came across that text communication, it took place on the 29th between Ms. Read and her attorney, the phone had to be sent off to what they call a taint team to remove any attorney-client privilege information from the phone, and then it would be returned to us as well as defense received a copy of that as well. I'm not positive on the time. It was quite -- it was quite a long turnaround for that process to have -- to be complete -- completed.
MR. LALLY: Sometime at least in the spring or summer of 2023; does that sound about right?
MR. PROCTOR: That's sounds about right.
MR. LALLY: May I approach to retrieve, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: May I have one moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir. I have no further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So I'm going to see you at sidebar so I don't interrupt your cross.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: So what are we going to do about scheduling?
MR. JACKSON: I don't have to check my phone. I turned it off during session out of respect for the Court, but I can go turn it on real quick and see --
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't you go get it and bring it over here.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
end of sidebar.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Jurors, we're trying to figure out scheduling.
(Sidebar commences:
MR. JACKSON: It just needs to power up.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure. So you've got people flying in Wednesday for Thursday.
MR. LALLY: Correct. And actually, I had a chance to speak with one of the advocates in reference to that. So the Bode personnel is a little more problematic than I had even understood.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: So one of them, Mr. Bradford, is actually flying in Thursday morning and flying out Thursday night. And the other, Ms. Chart, is also -- she's flying in Wednesday night and flying out Thursday night.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So you need both of them on Thursday?
MR. LALLY: I do.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: And then with reference to Ms. Hyde, I had her scheduled for Friday --
JUDGE CANNONE: What's she testifying to?
MR. LALLY: She is one of the independent experts we retained in regards to Ms. McCabe's search.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: So her issue is that she is available this week but not next week, so I really need to get her in on Friday.
MR. JACKSON: He just -- Dr. Wolfe just texted me and said, "I presumed you were in court. Give me a call when you're available."
COURT REPORTER: I'm getting an interference from the phone.
MR. JACKSON: I'm so sorry.
COURT REPORTER: That's okay.
MR. JACKSON: Hold that. He texted something to the effect of, I presume you're in court, but give me a call when you have a chance. So he's asking me to call him. I'm happy to do that. I don't want to take up anymore of the Court's time, but I will -- I can --
JUDGE CANNONE: They're only in Pennsylvania, right?
MR. JACKSON: They're in Pennsylvania, yes. Wolfe and Renschler are both in Pennsylvania.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So what was the medical doctor?
MR. JACKSON: Her issue is that she is -- she already has a flight out here for other purposes. She's going to New York.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: I want to say out here-ish Wednesday night, and she was just going to coordinate it with somebody that she has meetings with today and tomorrow to make sure that she's going to be done, she's going to be able to make that flight on Wednesday, which would make her in New York on Thursday and available on Friday. So if the Court wishes, I can try to push Dr. Renschler and Dr. Woolf to Friday instead of Wednesday.
JUDGE CANNONE: Except you've got Ms. Hyde who has to testify on Friday.
MR. LALLY: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: And then she's gone, right?
MR. JACKSON: We are not going to be all day on voir dire on these three witnesses by any means. It may be more than a half day but it won't be all day. So I don't see Ms. Hyde being interrupted.
COURT CLERK: We have a half day on Friday, right, or is that the 21st?
MR. JACKSON: No, we've got a full day on Friday.
COURT CLERK: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: Can you get the Pennsylvania guys here on Wednesday?
MR. JACKSON: As soon as I make a phone call, I'll be able to tell you.
JUDGE CANNONE: And the medical doctor Friday and you can still have Ms. Hyde Friday. I didn't want to break up the experts. I didn't want to do separate days, but it looks like we might have to, and I was thinking it was in terms of the new medical doctor seems more pressing than the others.
MR. JACKSON: But she's also shorter. I mean, she's literally going to talk about some scratches.
JUDGE CANNONE: And where she got the information and all that kind of stuff, right?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: So you're still presenting your case. What is it that you'd like to do this week?
MR. LALLY: My preference, and I'm obviously very mindful of this issue, my preference would be to continue on with my case this week if - depending on how quickly we go. I mean, I think we could be close to finishing on the 17th. My preference would be to dedicate the 18th to this and then the Juneteenth holiday, the following day, we're off anyway giving sort of a buffer of a couple of days in between, then the Commonwealth rests, and the defense starts putting their case on the 20th.
MR. JACKSON: I can have everybody out there then.
JUDGE CANNONE: But you do have a motion. So aside from the voir dire, I have to make a decision on this.
MR. JACKSON: Of course. Of course.
JUDGE CANNONE: So that's why I don't want to rush.
MR. LALLY: And I understand. And I don't want to put the Court in a position.
JUDGE CANNONE: And I also don't want to be in a position where the Commonwealth is looking for a continuance for a rebuttal expert based on what you hear from the medical doctor this week. So those are all reasons I'd like to get it done sooner rather than later.
MR. LALLY: I understand. I don't foresee that happening.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. All right. So we'll just plan on going forward the rest of the week. I wouldn't mind being able to do that medical doctor on Friday afternoon, if you finish.
MR. LALLY: That's fine.
JUDGE CANNONE: Where she's here.
MR. JACKSON: And just get her out of the way.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So why don't we plan on that and see how the evidence goes and then we'll use either the morning of the 18th or even a full day on the 18th to do the others.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: Because I would assume all of you want that.
MR. JACKSON: Right. So with the -- if I'm hearing the Court right, then I'll just shift everybody except the Dr. Russell to coming out here to prepare for testimony on the 18th.
JUDGE CANNONE: Right.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: And she's here anyway, so let's try to --
MR. JACKSON: She's --
JUDGE CANNONE: -- get here on Friday, and if we don't reach her, she comes back on the 18th as well.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So we'll tell the jurors for the rest of this week, we'll be in session. Maybe they'll get an afternoon off aside from tomorrow.
MR. JACKSON: Does the Court want me to start, or?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah. Unless you don't want to. Would you prefer to wait?
MR. JACKSON: No, I'd like to start.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good. I'd like you to get started.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
end of sidebar.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So just before you start then so we'll finish at 4:00. We're trying to figure out the schedule and the time they're going to need with the lawyers and the witnesses. We're trying to work all that out. But as it looks right now, I thought it was going to interfere with another date this week. As it looks right now, it may not. At the most, it will be half an afternoon or something maybe on Friday, but it does now look good that we'll be able to continue with this. We're out tomorrow, but Wednesday, Thursday, Friday we'll be full days, and we'll be able to keep moving. All right. Mr. Jackson, go right ahead.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.