Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveJoseph Paul - Direct
83 linesCOURT OFFICER: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all parties having anything to do before the Honorable First Justice Beverly J. Cannone now sitting in the Norfolk Superior Court within for the county of Norfolk, draw near and give your attendance. You shall be heard. God save this court.
JUDGE CANNONE: Seated. Good morning again, counsel, and Miss Read. Good morning, jurors. Hope you all enjoyed this gorgeous weekend. I have those three questions to ask you. Were you all able to follow the instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since we left here on Friday? Yes, everyone said yes and nodded affirmatively. Were you also able to follow the instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Yes, everyone said yes and nodded affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about the case since we left? Everyone said no or shook their head. Thank you very much. Could we please have Trooper Paul?
COURT CLERK: [unintelligible] ...the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, Trooper. All right, Mr. Lally, whenever you're ready.
MR. LALLY: Good morning, sir.
MR. LALLY: If you could just again, please state your name and spell your last name for the jury.
MR. LALLY: And sir, if I could just take you back to a couple different portions of your testimony from Friday. With respect to the acceleration and braking tests that you conducted in the driveway area or outside of Canton Police Department, was that before or after Ms. Hartnett from Crime Services Section had processed the vehicle?
MR. LALLY: And so as far as anything that was removed by her, that was done prior to you conducting any of your tests. Is that correct?
MR. LALLY: Now, you investigated approximately 191 crashes over your time with the CARS unit with the state police, correct?
MR. LALLY: Now I'm going to ask you just some general questions with regard to a number of those crashes. A number of those crashes have involved motor vehicles, collisions with other motor vehicles, correct?
MR. LALLY: Now in general terms, with respect to motor vehicle collisions, you talked a little bit last week about sort of area of impact and point of impact, correct?
MR. LALLY: Now, that's with regard to the roadway. Is that correct?
MR. LALLY: So with regard to the vehicles coming in contact with each other, what if anything regarding damage would you expect to anticipate based on your experience in general terms when vehicles come in contact or touch with each other in a collision sequence?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it. In general terms, what do you look for?
MR. PAUL: So we look — well, there are two types of damage onto a vehicle. One's contact damage and one's induced damage. So when we look at vehicles we are looking for what's called contact damage, and the induced damage is basically — sort of from the beginning — so contact damage is the damage that has actually made direct contact with another vehicle, and induced damage is the damage that does not make direct contact. So for example, if you push in one piece of metal that makes contact, the rest of the metal will make a rippling effect that would more cause induced damage.
MR. LALLY: And just again in general terms, as far as vehicles coming in contact with each other in a collision sequence, what if anything would you expect or anticipate based on your experience to sort of transfer from one vehicle to the other?
MR. PAUL: It's possible when you have a transfer — you can have paint transfers that come from one vehicle to another, you've got tire rub-off that goes from one vehicle to another, scratches that would come from one vehicle to another.
MR. LALLY: And again, so just in general terms, when it comes to vehicles interacting with each other in a collision sequence, what if any role does the respective heights of those vehicles play in respect to contact damage or induced damage?
MR. PAUL: Yeah, it depends on their heights and how they relate to each other. So that kind of shows — if one vehicle's taller and one smaller, it's going to show where the contact damage would be from one vehicle to another based on their height.
MR. LALLY: So based on respective heights, contact or induced damage could be in a different location from a bigger vehicle to a smaller vehicle, correct?
MR. LALLY: Now if I could turn you back to the EDR stream analysis that you conducted with respect to the defendant's vehicle. The two events that occurred on that 12,629 miles — there were two events that occurred within that trigger, within that mileage. Is that correct?
MR. LALLY: And based on your analysis, with respect to the odometer readings and the mileage, what is your belief as to where the vehicle was when those two events — being the three-point turn and the backup speed for approximately 60-some-odd feet — where did those occur within the travel path of the defendant?
MR. PAUL: So the first one with the three-point turn — in this case it appeared it could possibly be on — it was on Cedarcrest, which, because we know based on testimony that she missed the exit to Fairview and had to make a U-turn onto Cedarcrest, and that would make sense as to why they occur in close proximity to each other. They're within the same odometer mileage and on the same key cycle.
MR. LALLY: And so that reverse at 24.2 miles per hour for 60-some-odd feet — where would that have occurred geographically, from your review of the odometer readings?
MR. LALLY: Now sir, based on the totality of your analysis and your investigation in this case, what if any conclusions did you come to as to how this collision sequence occurred, or how this crash occurred?
JUDGE CANNONE: Look at your report. Yes, sure, go ahead. Okay, thank you. Can we continue?
MR. LALLY: If you could please — what if any conclusions did you come to through your reports of your investigation?
JUDGE CANNONE: So, you can look at your report but you can't read from it. Read your conclusions based on what they asked you to do, okay?
JUDGE CANNONE: I can't hear you, okay. So, just take your time, read your report, and then answer Mr. Lally's question. And if you need to look at your report, we'll see about that again. All right, ask the question, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Based on the totality of your investigation, what if any conclusions did you come to with regard to how this collision occurred?
MR. PAUL: So this collision occurred on Saturday, January 29th, 2022, at approximately 12:45 hours. A 2021 Lexus LX570 was traveling southbound on Fairview Road in the area of 34 Fairview Road.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally, break this down, ask simple questions so that the witness can answer your questions. We don't need a narrative from your investigation. What if any conclusions did you come to as to where this collision —
MR. LALLY: So all right. So on the night of Saturday, January 29th, 2022, at approximately 12:45 hours, a 2021 Lexus LX570 —
JUDGE CANNONE: Can you slow down?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: So forget all that part. Trooper, answer the question. Where did it occur?
MR. LALLY: And who, if anyone, were the participants in this collision sequence?
MR. LALLY: And where was the vehicle located in reference to the residence of 34 Fairview Road?
MR. PAUL: It was located along the southbound travel lane and to the left side of the house as you look at it from the front.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the vehicle, what if any direction did it head in and what if any interaction did it have with —
MR. PAUL: So the vehicle was traveling in reverse along the southbound travel lane, traveling north.
MR. LALLY: And how fast was the vehicle traveling and over what distance?
MR. LALLY: And at the time that the vehicle was traveling approximately 24 miles per hour over approximately 62 feet, what if anything occurred?
MR. LALLY: And post-collision, what if anything occurred with regard to Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PAUL: Mr. O'Keefe was projected forward and to the left along the front yard of 34 Fairview Road.
MR. LALLY: And post-collision with Mr. O'Keefe, what if anything did the defendant's vehicle, the Lexus, do?
MR. LALLY: Now as far as the vehicle itself, from your inspection, what if any role did any mechanical aspects of the vehicle play in this crash?
MR. LALLY: And as far as your analysis of the roadway and other factors related to that, what if any role did they play in this collision sequence?
MR. LALLY: Now sir, with respect to your investigation, what if any opinions did you draw based on your training and experience in regard to this collision and how it occurred?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Thank you.
MR. PAUL: All right. So throughout my investigation, this appeared to be a single-car collision involving a pedestrian. ...the vehicle accelerated at a high rate of speed before she struck the pedestrian John O'Keefe on the roadway, and subsequently left him at the scene.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to the backup safety system that you observed in this vehicle and made use of in the course of your visibility analysis, what if any role is it your opinion that that played in how this crash occurred?
MR. PAUL: Based on the visibility analysis -- so even if the camera systems were covered in snow, even if the systems were defective anyway, and even if the mirrors were blocked, an attentive and reasonable operator would not travel in reverse, especially at a high rate of speed. They would have cleaned the mirrors off. They would have made the cameras and systems -- if they worked, they didn't work -- they would have done all this prior to accelerating in reverse.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. YANNETTI: Motion to strike.
JUDGE CANNONE: Going to strike that.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to your observations during the course of the visibility -- the exemplar pedestrian that you placed in the right rear of the vehicle, was that exemplar pedestrian visible to you at the time that you conducted that visibility analysis?
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.