Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveJoseph Paul — Direct
117 lines(Court in session.)
(Defendant is present with counsel.)
JUDGE CANNONE: So, Counsel, I'll see you at sidebar, please.
COURT CLERK: 22117, Commonwealth versus Karen Read.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning.
MR. LALLY: Good morning.
MR. YANNETTI: Good morning.
MR. JACKSON: Good morning.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning.
JUDGE CANNONE: So after the voir dire, so Mr. Lally, I'm not going to let you show the witness the video and ask any questions about whether there was enough force to cause the damage to the taillight.
MR. LALLY: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: Not now, not through this witness, it's going to be cross-examination of other witnesses or maybe even rebuttal. Okay. And also, I'm not sure they need expert testimony to argue it, but we can deal with that. So you can talk about bumpers in general, which you started to do something about that. And you can talk in general terms about what happens when cars collide. Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Anything else?
MR. JACKSON: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. All right. All set?
MR. LALLY: Absolutely.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So we can bring the jurors in.
(Jury in.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, again, counsel and Ms. Read. Good morning, jurors. I 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? 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? Everyone said yes or nodded affirmatively. Didn't anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case since we left here on Friday? Everyone said no or shook their head. Thank you very much. Can we please have Trooper Paul? JOSEPH PAUL, sworn
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, Trooper.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Mr. Lally, whenever you're ready.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LALLY, continued:
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 of different portions of your testimony from Friday. With respect to the acceleration and breaking tests that you conducted in the driveway area outside of Canton Police Department, was that before or after Ms. Hartnett from crime scene services section had processed the vehicle?
MR. LALLY: And so 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've 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 have involved motor vehicles, collisions without motor vehicles, correct?
MR. LALLY: Now in general terms with respect to motor vehicle collision, what, if any, you talked a little bit last week about sort of an area of impact and a 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 or anticipate based on your experience in general terms with when vehicles come in contact or touch each other in a collision sequence?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: No, I'm going to allow it. In general terms, what do you look for?
MR. PAUL: So we look -- well, there's two types of damage onto a vehicle. One's contact damage and one's induced damage. So when we look at vehicles, we're looking for what's called contact damage, and the adduced damage is basically -- let me start from the beginning. So contact damage is the damage that is actually made direct contact with another vehicle. And induced damage if the damage that not big truck contact. So, for example, if you would push in one piece of metal to make contact, the rest of the metal will make a rippling effect to -- that would newer cause adduced damage.
MR. LALLY: And just again in general terms as far as vehicles coming into contact with each other in a collision sequence, what, if anything, would expect or anticipate based on your experience sort of transfer from one vehicle to the other?
MR. PAUL: It's possible when you transfer you can have paint transfers that come from one vehicle to another. You got tire rub off that go from one vehicle to another, scratches that would come from one vehicle to another.
MR. LALLY: And again, sir, 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 adduced damage?
MR. PAUL: Yeah, it depends on their height and how they relate to each other so it kind of shows, you know, if one's taller, one's smaller, it's going to show where the contact damage would be from one vehicle to another based on their heights.
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 Techstream analysis that you conducted with respect to the defendant's vehicle. Now, the two events that occurs -- forgive me. On that 1269 miles B, 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, where is it -- what is your belief as to where the vehicle was when those two events being a three-point turn and the backup reverse(ph), where did those occur within the travel path of the defendant's vehicle?
MR. PAUL: So the first one with the three-point turn, in this case it appeared to be possibly onto what is it Cedar Crest which because we know based on testimony that missed the exit to Fairview and had to make a U- turn onto Cedar Crest, and that would make sense to why they occur or were in close proximity to each other. They're within the same odometer mileage and on the same key cycle.
MR. LALLY: And so that refers to 24.2 miles per hour for 60 semi-odd feet, where would that have occurred geographically from your view of the odometer reading?
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 happened?
JUDGE CANNONE: Are you asking to look at your report?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor. A Do you want me to continue?
MR. LALLY: If you could, please.
MR. LALLY: What, if any, conclusions did you come to through the course of your investigation?
JUDGE CANNONE: So you can look at your report, but you can't read your report. A My conclusions based on they asked me to do.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah, also I can't hear you.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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 29, 2022, at approximately 1245 hours. A 2021 Lexus LX570 was traveling southbound on Fairview Road -- an area of 34 Fairview Road.
MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor. It appears --
JUDGE CANNONE: So you know what, Mr. Lally, break this down. Ask simple questions so that the witness can answer your questions. We don't need a narrative.
MR. LALLY: From your investigation, what, if any, conclusions did you come to as to where this collision occurred?
MR. PAUL: All right. So on the night of Saturday, January 29, 2022, at approximately 1245 hours, a 2021 Lexus LX570 --
COURT REPORTER: Can you slow down, sir?
JUDGE CANNONE: So forget all that part, Trooper.
JUDGE CANNONE: Just answer the question. Where did it occur? A It occurred in the area of 34 Fairview Road.
MR. LALLY: And who, if anyone, were the participants in this collision scene?
MR. LALLY: And where was the vehicle located in reference to the residence at 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, directionality did it head in, and what, if any, interaction did it have with Mr. O'Keefe?
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. PAUL: The vehicle traveled up to 24 miles per hour and approximately 62 feet. A And at the time that the vehicle was traveling approximately 24 miles per hour over approximately 62 feet, what, if anything, occurred then? A The right rear of the Lexus struck the pedestrian John O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: And because of this 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 close collision with Mr. O'Keefe what, if anything, did the defendant's vehicle 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 collision?
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, opinion did you draw based on your training and experience in regard to this collision and how it occurred?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. PAUL: All right. So throughout my investigation, this appeared to be a single car collision involving a pedestrian. The vehicle was traveling at an accelerated -- a higher -- higher acceleration when -- sorry. 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, do you -- 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 any way, and even if the mirrors were blocked, an attentive and a reasonable operator would not traveled in reverse, especially at high rate of speed. They would have cleaned the mirrors off. They would've made the camera systems if they worked or they didn't work. They would've done all this prior to accelerating in reverse.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: The objection is sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Move to strike that.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to strike that.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to your observations during the course of the visibility analysis, 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.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Cross-examination.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.