Marie Russell — Voir Dire

27 17:14

MR. JACKSON: So during the course of -- the trial is a dynamic thing. During the course of the trial, I did not know who Dr. Marie Russell was at the time that they filed their certificate of compliance. We then attempted to, and did, give them the reciprocal discovery that we were obligated to do after they filed their certificate of compliance.

28 17:34

JUDGE CANNONE: When?

29 17:35

MR. JACKSON: Within three days of that. We had been giving them information prior to that, but at least within three days of that. We've continued, so the record is clear, we've continued to get additional discovery from the Commonwealth and notices of discovery throughout the trial. They have not finished. In fact, during the trial, they interviewed Jen McCabe, apparently, had a full interview with her. Lieutenant Tully took a report, dated the report, and then they held on to that report until after she testified. The interview, the report, and the completion of the report were all done before her testimony.

30 18:12

JUDGE CANNONE: Do you need -- do you need to call her again?

31 18:15

MR. JACKSON: No, Your Honor. I'm not -- that's not my -- and I think the Court understands. That's not my point. My point is not I need to call Jennifer McCabe back. I've done the damage that needs to be done on Jennifer McCabe. The point is --

32 18:25

JUDGE CANNONE: I'm sorry. I missed that. You've what?

33 18:26

MR. JACKSON: I've done the damage that needed to be done on Jennifer McCabe. I don't need to call her back. The point is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The Commonwealth doesn't have -- doesn't get to stand in the position of piecemealing and feeding us information reports, discovery, throughout the course of the trial. And by the way, when we then got central -- seminal information about an expert that we did not know about, never met, never heard of, within three days of that, we provide everything that we have about that witness to the Commonwealth. They can't then turn around and say, oh, well, it's all the defense's fault. So we want to have a voir dire. Which means that the euphemism for that voir dire is, we want to have two shots at the -- two bites of the apple. We want to be able to completely cross-examine her, then go back to our experts, and if she testifies, cross-examine her again after consulting with our expert. That's two bites of the apple, and that's not fair. If the Court wants to hear whether or not Dr. Marie Russell is qualified to testify about the arm injuries, that I believe is the parameters, the proper parameters, of the voir dire, and that's what I'm prepared to do today. But I wasn't planning on getting into the substance of her testimony, because that's been provided. And I don't think Mr. Lally should be able to get into the substance of her testimony, because he knows what her - the substance is, because, like I said, that's been provided.

34 19:53

JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So I disagree. I'm going to hear from the Commonwealth on this. Is it Ms. McLaughlin or Mr. Lally?

35 20:03

MR. LALLY: Your Honor, just briefly in regard to what counsel was referencing with Ms. McCabe. It was not a full interview by Lieutenant Tully. It was a -- and I can give, I don't have it on me at this moment, but I can give the Court a copy of that report. But essentially, it was Miss McCabe met with Lieutenant Tully, looked at some video, and was asked a single question. That report wasn't available. I didn't have it until after Ms. McCabe testified, but it was given to counsel prior to Lieutenant Tully testifying, and there were no questions asked of Lieutenant Tully in regard to that. The -- my issue, and you know, I wasn't asking for a voir dire as it proposed to -- as it relates to Dr. Russell, is that we first heard of Dr. Russell on May 21, which was, I think, six weeks into trial.

36 20:52

JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So that's what I asked, and you told me it was three days after the beginning of trial, Mr. Jackson.

37 21:01

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I said at this at sidebar the other day, and I just said it again today. I let the Commonwealth and the Court know about Dr. Marie Russell three days after I learned about her, which was the 17th of May. I had never -- I think it was the 17th of May. I had never heard of her. I didn't know who she was. We made contact. I determined that she would be useful for the jury in terms of the, specifically, the injuries to John O'Keefe's arm. I didn't have one conversation with her, then immediately, within three days of that, turned that information over to the -- to the prosecution. So I didn't say that I gave this over three days of the trial. That's not what I said.

38 21:37

JUDGE CANNONE: All right. But you were ordered to do it -- Mr. Yanetti, what was the date? What -- you had one week from when?

39 21:44

MR. YANNETTI: The day before trial. So it would have been, I believe, April 15. So what we knew as of that date, we were required to turn over.

40 21:54

JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I need to take a quick recess.

(Court in recess.)

(Court in session.)

(Defendant is present with counsel.)

44 23:15

COURT OFFICER: Please be seated. Court is back in session.

45 24:26

JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So the Commonwealth has moved that I exclude the testimony of Dr. Russell, based on a violation of the reciprocal discovery obligations of the defense. So I do find that there is a violation of the reciprocal discovery obligations of Rule 14. And I'm quoting from the notes the importance of this, the reporter's notes to the old rule, and as you all know, we're in the process of updating that rule, "But the very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts within the framework of the rules of evidence. To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or the defense." So what we're here to do today is decide a remedy for this violation, and that's why we're having a voir dire. I am not prohibiting the Commonwealth from anything on their examination of witness, Mr. Jackson. The alternative is she doesn't testify. So the Commonwealth has not received the appropriate discovery from this witness. So we're going to have a voir dire, and they can ask her anything that they think they need to ask her. So those are the parameters of this morning.

46 26:00

MR. JACKSON: As long as I know the guardrails, that's -- that's fine. I just to close the loop on the record, my understanding, and Ms. Little can probably speak to this more intelligently than I can, but during the middle of trial, there was a witness that we had never heard of. We did not know and didn't have a report for.

47 26:17

JUDGE CANNONE: Who is that?

48 26:18

MR. JACKSON: Dr. Faller, F-A-L-L-E-R.

49 26:21

50 26:21

MR. JACKSON: If the Court remembers, it's buried in the middle of about 75 witnesses. So he testified to alcohol levels, et cetera, and protocols at the -- which institution? At Good Sam, Good Samaritan. We didn't have that information either. We didn't throw a fit. They said we were going to provide this information in a timely fashion. As soon as we know that we're going to call him, he's going to be on our witness list. We didn't know one way or the other what he was going to say. We didn't have a report. And we went out about our business. That's what we were doing as well. And by the way, I would note that the notes and the report under Rule 14 required disclosure of information you have. I just don't want the Court to think that we were sitting on information that we didn't turn over.

51 27:05

JUDGE CANNONE: No, I'm not. I'm not saying that. It's just this isn't as if it was something that the Commonwealth brought up and you needed to scramble. This is entirely of the defense position. So --

52 27:18

MR. JACKSON: I understand.

53 27:19

JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So that's the big difference. So why don't you go ahead and call her?

54 27:22

MR. JACKSON: Okay. May I be excused to call the witness.

Voir Dire

55 28:31

JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. MARIE RUSSELL, sworn

56 28:33

JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning.

57 28:34

DR. RUSSELL: Good morning.

58 28:34

JUDGE CANNONE: So I'm going to ask you to keep your voice up. Speak right into that microphone, Doctor, okay?

59 28:38

60 28:39

JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Jackson.

61 28:41

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. JACKSON:

63 28:43

MR. JACKSON: Good morning. Could you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

64 28:46

DR. RUSSELL: Yes. Marie Russell, R-U-S-S-E-L-L.

65 28:53

MR. JACKSON: And I'm going to echo what the Court just indicated. The air conditioners are on -- on. So please keep your voice as elevated as possible to speak -- maneuver the microphone however you need to, okay?

66 29:02

DR. RUSSELL: Okay.

67 29:04

MR. JACKSON: Dr. Russell, what do you do for a living?

68 29:07

DR. RUSSELL: I am a retired emergency physician and forensic pathologist.

69 29:12

MR. JACKSON: And tell me what education you have going all the way back to the beginning that qualifies you as an emergency physician and former pathologist, before you retired.

70 29:25

DR. RUSSELL: Okay. Well, I've had about at least 16 years of formal education beyond high school. Initially, I started at MIT where I did my premed courses. I had always wanted to be a physician, and so -- so I went to MIT for a year, took my took premed courses. And then I had an unusual life event in that my mother came down with cancer and she subsequently passed away. During the time away, I -- so I took some time off from school. During that period of time, I decided to explore another interest of mine, which was law enforcement. And so I took some courses in law enforcement, and I became a full-time police officer here in Massachusetts.

71 30:23

MR. JACKSON: What years were you at MIT?

72 30:26

DR. RUSSELL: That was 1972 to 1974.

73 30:32

MR. JACKSON: Did you go to the police academy?

74 30:34

DR. RUSSELL: I did. When -- once I became a police officer here in Massachusetts, I attended the Boston Police Academy where I graduated.

75 30:44

MR. JACKSON: What year was that?

76 30:46

DR. RUSSELL: That was in 1977.

77 30:48

MR. JACKSON: During the course of your training as a police officer, did you have any specialized training in hit and run accidents and investigations?

78 30:55

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, I did.

79 30:57

MR. JACKSON: And which agency did you work for as a sworn police officer?

80 31:01

DR. RUSSELL: I worked for the city of Malden full-time for seven years.

81 31:05

MR. JACKSON: That would be from 1977 to 1984, approximately?

82 31:09

DR. RUSSELL: Correct.

83 31:10

MR. JACKSON: During that time, did you continue your education in any way?

84 31:13

DR. RUSSELL: I did. So -- okay. I took as many courses as I could from the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council, which included a course, a several day course, in hit-and-run accident investigation. I took courses in forensic photography and numerous other things. And then -- and I also, at the same time, continued to go to college, and I did that part-time where I eventually got a degree in -- a bachelor's degree of Science in psychology with highest honors.

85 31:49

MR. JACKSON: What institution was that from?

86 31:51

DR. RUSSELL: That was from Northeastern University.

87 31:53

MR. JACKSON: And that was a bachelor of arts in psychology?

88 31:55

DR. RUSSELL: I think it was a bachelor of science.

89 31:56

MR. JACKSON: Got it. Subsequent to your bachelor of science degree from Northeastern, did you also advance your education further, formally?

90 32:09

DR. RUSSELL: Subsequent to it? So, yes, so I decided that I did want to pursue a medical career, and so I then attended medical school, University of Massachusetts Medical School full-time for four years.

91 32:26

MR. JACKSON: Did you ultimately get a degree, an MD degree from UMass?

92 32:30

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, a doctor of medicine degree in 1987.

93 32:33

MR. JACKSON: So you were there from 1983 to 1987; is that right?

94 32:36

DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.

95 32:37

MR. JACKSON: And did you do a residency?

96 32:39

DR. RUSSELL: I did. I did two residencies, actually. Most people do one, but I did two. I did -- my first residency was combined internship and residency for four years, and I did that in Los Angeles at Los Angeles County Medical Center, which is a very big trauma center, and what I would consider the Bellevue of the West Coast. Very busy.

97 33:07

MR. JACKSON: You say that just because the volume at USC Medical Center?

98 33:11

DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.

99 33:12

MR. JACKSON: Is it one of the busiest medical trauma centers in the country?

100 33:16

101 33:16

MR. JACKSON: You were there from 1987 to 1991; is that right?

102 33:17

DR. RUSSELL: For -- yes, I was -- yes, I did my ER internship and residency during those years, yes, there.

103 33:25

MR. JACKSON: During that time were you seeing patients?

104 33:28

DR. RUSSELL: Oh, yes.

105 33:28

MR. JACKSON: You were treating patients?

106 33:29

DR. RUSSELL: Lots of them.

107 33:30

MR. JACKSON: You were attending to -- attending to patients?

108 33:32

DR. RUSSELL: I was -- I was a trainee so I was -- I was seeing as many patients as we could. There was always a, you know, a waiting room full of patients. And, yeah, so I saw many, many patients during that time period.

109 33:44

MR. JACKSON: Did -- you indicated a second residency. Tell me about that.

110 33:47

DR. RUSSELL: Okay. So I still realized I had an interest in forensics, and I -- so I decided that I wanted to also train in forensic pathology. So I did a second residency in anatomic pathology two years, followed by forensic pathology fellowship at the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office for two years.

111 34:14

MR. JACKSON: And the years, if that's four years, that would be from 1991 to 1995, approximately?

112 34:19

DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.

113 34:22

MR. JACKSON: Tell me what your experience was as a fellow at the Los Angeles coroner's office -- Los Angeles County Coroner's Office.

114 34:29

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, well, it also was a very busy coroner's office. And so every day there would be cases. I probably did at least two cases a day on most days, and plus conferences and educational opportunities. But the interesting thing about being a fellow is they try to give you a wide assortment of cases. So, for instance, I not only saw numerous victims of gunshot violence and stabbings, but I saw numerous victims of motor vehicle accidents and natural death overdoses. And then if there was an unusual case, it usually went to the fellow, you know, because the fellow was also being supervised, so.

115 35:14

MR. JACKSON: Did any of those unusual cases -- and we'll get more into this in just a second, but did any of those unusual cases include animal attacks?

116 35:21

117 35:22

MR. JACKSON: Did you become a professor, an educator, at any point?

118 35:27

DR. RUSSELL: Yes. So during my 29 years at LA County Hospital, I -- well, during the last 25 of those, I was an assistant professor or an instructor, but mostly an assistant professor. What -- and what that meant is that I was responsible for overseeing the care that was provided by the interns and residents. So when a patient would come into the -- into the hospital, the emergency room, they were oftentimes, usually seen by the intern or resident, and then I would go and subsequently see that patient also. So -- and that was in addition to my own cases. So I'd see my cases and their cases.

119 36:14

MR. JACKSON: And that was at LA USC, correct?

120 36:16

DR. RUSSELL: That is correct. And --

121 36:18

MR. JACKSON: Can I get a quick question?

122 36:20

123 36:20

MR. JACKSON: LA USC, for those of us who are not necessarily familiar with it, is that associated with the University of Southern California Medical Center?

124 36:27

125 36:28

MR. JACKSON: That's the school in other words?

126 36:29

DR. RUSSELL: Yes. So it stands for Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center.

127 36:37

MR. JACKSON: And that's where you were an assistant professor for the majority of the rest of your career?

128 36:42

DR. RUSSELL: Correct.

129 36:43

MR. JACKSON: Were you also an assistant or an adjunct professor at Cal State, Los Angeles?

130 36:48

131 36:48

MR. JACKSON: Okay. For how long were you an adjunct professor there?

132 36:51

DR. RUSSELL: I believe that was four or five years, and I taught criminalistics, forensic medicine there.

133 36:58

MR. JACKSON: As an attending physician in the ER, in other words, a supervising physician in ER, can you tell us what some of your duties and responsibilities included, especially as it pertains to trauma, and then I'll get more specific in just a second.

134 37:13

DR. RUSSELL: Okay. Well, so I would oversee the care of all the patients that came in during a particular shift, and that would include medical patients and trauma patients. And as I mentioned, it was a very busy trauma center, so we had lots of trauma patients, including the types of violence I described earlier that I saw at the coroner's office, but lots of motor vehicle accident victims because there was a highway there right nearby. There were a couple of highways. And -- so, yeah, so a wide variety of accidents.

135 37:50

MR. JACKSON: Did your supervision include assessing, diagnosing, and treating patients?

136 37:55

DR. RUSSELL: Correct.

137 37:55

MR. JACKSON: In terms of the middle part of that diagnosis, was part of your job to determine the cause of injuries, or to at least assess the cause of injuries?

138 38:08

DR. RUSSELL: Yes. And I took that on a little bit more because I was interested in the forensics aspect of the injuries.

139 38:13

MR. JACKSON: The forensic aspect?

140 38:15

141 38:20

MR. JACKSON: Okay. During your time at LA USC, even after you left the Los Angeles coroner's office as a fellow, did you continue to stay in contact with the coroner's office and have a relationship with the coroner's office as a supervising physician?

142 38:35

DR. RUSSELL: I continued to stay in contact with the coroner's office, and I used to attend their conferences as often as I could, not as a supervising physician, but as a physician and a graduate of their program.

143 38:48

MR. JACKSON: During your tenure at LA USC, did you ever become the director of any programs at LA USC?

144 38:56

145 38:58

MR. JACKSON: Did that include the Director of Center for Life Support Training?

146 39:01

147 39:02

MR. JACKSON: What years was that, if you remember?

148 39:04

DR. RUSSELL: I don't remember that --

149 39:05

MR. JACKSON: Early 2000s, late 90s?

150 39:07

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, that sounds about right.

151 39:08

MR. JACKSON: Okay.

152 39:08

DR. RUSSELL: And we would conduct lots of courses, including trauma life support courses.

153 39:15

MR. JACKSON: Did LA USC incorporate a quality improvement program?

154 39:20

155 39:21

MR. JACKSON: Within their institution?

156 39:24

157 39:25

MR. JACKSON: Did you become a director of that as well?

158 39:27

159 39:27

MR. JACKSON: So you were Director of Center for Life Support Training and director of LA USC Medical Center Quality Improvement; is that right?

160 39:34

DR. RUSSELL: The quality improvement was for the emergency department. Yes.

161 39:37

MR. JACKSON: All right. And did you also become the director for jail medical services?

162 39:43

163 39:44

MR. JACKSON: What is the association between LA USC and the very, very expansive jail system in Los Angeles County?

164 39:51

DR. RUSSELL: So LA County Hospital was unique in that they many, many years ago developed a jail -- what they called a jail ward which was a combined inpatient, outpatient and ER. So there was a dedicated jail ER. And that has been in existence for probably about 70 years now. And so patients that were placed under arrest by either LA sheriff, LAPD, California Highway Patrol, or any of the municipal agencies in the area, and I think there were about 70 or more municipal agencies, could bring their patients to the LA County jail ward where they -- where the patients would get treatment.

165 40:38

MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, you became the director of that entire program, correct?

166 40:41

167 40:44

MR. JACKSON: Did you also work with the State Medical Board of California in any capacity?

168 40:50

169 40:51

MR. JACKSON: Tell us about that.

170 40:52

DR. RUSSELL: For about seven years, I worked part-time for the California Medical Board as a physician assigned to one of their enforcement teams, and I did that one day a week and I did my other job at the county hospital, the other 40 hours a week.

171 41:14

MR. JACKSON: So you didn't take off time from your duties as a -- as an ER physician, as an emergency physician, this was in addition to you being an emergency physician?

172 41:23

DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.

173 41:25

MR. JACKSON: Do you hold the title of chief medical executive for the for the California state prison system, specifically at Corcoran?

174 41:32

175 41:33

MR. JACKSON: Tell us about that.

176 41:34

DR. RUSSELL: So I retired from LA County Hospital, and I went on to move on to the LA -- excuse me -- the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

177 41:47

MR. JACKSON: And what year was that did you do that transition?

178 41:49

DR. RUSSELL: So 2018 is when I started for the state prison system.

179 41:53

MR. JACKSON: Okay.

180 41:53

DR. RUSSELL: And I worked there for five years as director of their medical service in Corcoran.

181 42:00

MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. So for that prison within that system, you were the chief medical executive for the entire agency, correct?

182 42:07

DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.

183 42:08

MR. JACKSON: All right.

184 42:08

DR. RUSSELL: For the entire -- for the entire prison.

185 42:11

MR. JACKSON: Understood. Are you board certified in emergency medicine?

186 42:16

187 42:17

MR. JACKSON: Are you a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners?

188 42:20

189 42:21

MR. JACKSON: Are you a member of the American Academy of Forensic Science?

190 42:24

191 42:24

MR. JACKSON: Do you have any publications in the area, and I'm going to be very specific, because I've -- you've been relatively widely published; is that right?

192 42:34

DR. RUSSELL: Some people would say yes. Some people would say no.

193 42:38

MR. JACKSON: More than a couple of publications?

194 42:40

DR. RUSSELL: Correct.

195 42:40

MR. JACKSON: And peer reviewed journals, correct?

196 42:42

197 42:43

MR. JACKSON: I want to focus your attention on animal injuries. Have you been published in the area of animal injuries, specifically?

198 42:50

199 42:51

MR. JACKSON: Do you recall those publications?

200 42:54

DR. RUSSELL: Yes. They had to do with law enforcement dog bites.

201 42:57

MR. JACKSON: Did you draft an article or coauthor an article called "Managing Law Enforcement Dog Bites in the ER"?

202 43:04

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, I was a coauthor.

203 43:06

MR. JACKSON: 1996?

204 43:07

DR. RUSSELL: Sounds right.

205 43:08

MR. JACKSON: And that was a peer reviewed article?

206 43:10

207 43:10

MR. JACKSON: Ultimately published?

208 43:12

209 43:12

MR. JACKSON: And ultimately available to be cited by other doctors and studied by other doctors, correct?

210 43:16

DR. RUSSELL: Correct.

211 43:17

MR. JACKSON: Did you also author or coauthor an article entitled, "Law Enforcement, Canine Dog Bites, Injuries, Complications, and Trends"?

212 43:25

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, I did.

213 43:27

MR. JACKSON: Is that in 1997?

214 43:28

DR. RUSSELL: Sounds right.

215 43:29

MR. JACKSON: Was that also peer reviewed?

216 43:31

217 43:31

MR. JACKSON: And that also -- that publication was also available for other physicians throughout California and throughout the country to refer to for the study of animal bites and dog bites, correct?

218 43:41

DR. RUSSELL: Dog bites, yes.

219 43:42

MR. JACKSON: Dog bites. Concerning animal injuries, during the course of your professional experience, how many patients have you seen, diagnosed, and/or treated with animal injuries, including dog bites and scratches, if you had to estimate?

220 43:58

DR. RUSSELL: Many hundreds.

221 44:01

MR. JACKSON: Would you say it's over or under 1,000?

222 44:05

DR. RUSSELL: I would say it's over 500. I can't -- I don't know because we didn't keep really good records back in the earlier days.

223 44:14

MR. JACKSON: But it's safe to say you've seen hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dog bites and scratches?

224 44:19

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, in my 29 years at LA County Hospital, yes. And my dog bites -- I mean dog bites that I took care of and dog bites that the residents took care of, yes.

225 44:29

MR. JACKSON: And you've even published articles and studied, not just seen them, but studied dog bites and dog wounds, correct?

226 44:35

227 44:39

MR. JACKSON: Have you qualified as an expert previously in other courts as an emergency -- in emergency medicine?

228 44:43

229 44:44

MR. JACKSON: Have you qualified as an expert in other courts in forensic pathology and wounds?

230 44:48

231 44:49

MR. JACKSON: Has that been in both state and federal court?

232 44:51

233 44:55

MR. JACKSON: Doctor, did you -- were you asked to review certain materials related to this case?

234 45:00

235 45:02

MR. JACKSON: And that was in furtherance of coming to, if you could, come to an opinion or a conclusion about injuries to the victim in this case, a person by the name of John O'Keefe?

236 45:12

237 45:12

MR. JACKSON: What did you review in anticipation of your determining whether or not you could come to an opinion or a conclusion?

238 45:21

DR. RUSSELL: So I reviewed hospital photographs, autopsy photographs, an autopsy report, grand jury testimony from the medical examiner in this case. There may be some other --

239 45:46

MR. JACKSON: Based on --

240 45:47

JUDGE CANNONE: I just want to ask about that. Do you have notes with you as to what you reviewed?

241 45:51

242 45:53

JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So when you say there may -- there might be other, you don't --

243 45:55

DR. RUSSELL: Well, if, yeah, if --

244 45:56

JUDGE CANNONE: If he tells you what you reviewed, you -- you'd know it?

245 46:00

DR. RUSSELL: I would recognize it.

246 46:01

JUDGE CANNONE: All right. But I want to hear it from you. You don't know of anything else that you've reviewed. This is sort of important, Mr. Jackson.

247 46:09

DR. RUSSELL: Okay.

248 46:10

JUDGE CANNONE: Can you think of anything else, Doctor, besides these?

249 46:14

DR. RUSSELL: The autopsy -- autopsy photographs, autopsy report, neuropathology report, toxicology report, and the grand jury testimony.

250 46:31

MR. JACKSON: Okay. So as you recall, the items that you reviewed include an autopsy report by Dr. Scordi-Bello, correct?

251 46:40

252 46:41

MR. JACKSON: A neuropathology report by a doctor named Stonebridge, correct?

253 46:44

254 46:45

MR. JACKSON: Toxicological reports associated with the autopsy?

255 46:47

256 46:48

MR. JACKSON: Grand jury transcripts from Dr. Scordi-Bello?

257 46:51

258 46:52

MR. JACKSON: Photographs of evidence items including a gray sweatshirt?

259 46:56

DR. RUSSELL: Oh, yes, yes.

260 46:57

MR. JACKSON: And autopsy photos that were taken attended to the actual autopsy?

261 47:01

DR. RUSSELL: Yes. And photographs that were taken in the hospital, and I read the hospital ER record, also.

262 47:15

MR. JACKSON: So in addition to what you've just listed, there's also hospital photos separate and apart from the autopsy photos; is that correct?

263 47:21

264 47:21

MR. JACKSON: And those hospital photos showed the injuries to Mr. O'Keefe's arm; is that right?

265 47:26

266 47:26

MR. JACKSON: And you also reviewed emergency room records that are attended to his initial acceptance into the emergency room on January 29, 2022, correct?

267 47:36

DR. RUSSELL: That's correct.

268 47:36

MR. JACKSON: Based on your review of all of those materials, were you able to confidently come to any conclusions or opinions about the nature of the injuries suffered by John O'Keefe, specifically, as it related to -- as they relate to John O'Keefe's right arm?

269 47:54

270 47:54

MR. JACKSON: What is your opinion and conclusion concerning those injuries?

271 47:58

DR. RUSSELL: Those injuries appear to be consistent with an animal attack.

272 48:03

MR. JACKSON: Can you be more specific in terms of the type of animal, or are you relegated to simply an animal attack?

273 48:10

DR. RUSSELL: Well, they are consistent with a large dog attack. They're -- the -- there's combination of both what I consider bite wounds and scratch wounds on the arm. There were also some puncture wounds in that shirt.

274 48:28

MR. JACKSON: And are the puncture --

275 48:30

JUDGE CANNONE: I'm sorry. Puncture wounds in the shirt?

276 48:33

DR. RUSSELL: Puncture holes in the shirt.

277 48:36

278 48:37

MR. JACKSON: And on what do you base the opinion that the injuries are consistent with dog bite or scratch marks?

279 48:45

DR. RUSSELL: Well, the patterns. There are several patterns of parallel wounds that appear to be superficial scratches that could have been caused by nails or could have been caused by teeth. That -- they -- there are different angles on the arm and different locations on the arm, and -- but they're generally oriented in a -- in a specific direction. And there's also an area, the distal forearm, which is close to the wrist which shows what I believe is an arch area of teeth marks.

280 49:28

MR. JACKSON: And what's the significance of the arch area?

281 49:30

DR. RUSSELL: Well, so the arch would be the front area of the jaw of the animal, you know, or the dog in this case, where the teeth are tend to be close together and curved. There's a curved pattern to the configuration of the teeth.

282 50:35

MR. JACKSON: If I may have just a moment, Your Honor.

283 50:49

284 50:50

MR. JACKSON: Doctor, I'm going to show you a series of photographs.

285 51:05

MR. JACKSON: May I approach, Your Honor?

286 51:06

287 51:06

MR. JACKSON: First, can you describe whether or not you recognize what's depicted in that photograph? Have you seen that photograph before?

288 51:12

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, I have.

289 51:13

MR. JACKSON: Is that part of what you reviewed in coming to your opinions and conclusions?

290 51:17

291 51:18

MR. JACKSON: What is that a photograph of?

292 51:20

DR. RUSSELL: So this is a photograph of the decedent's fore -- arm, arm near the elbow, and it -- do you want me to describe what it shows?

293 51:32

MR. JACKSON: Just briefly --

294 51:33

DR. RUSSELL: Okay. And it shows wounds.

295 51:35

MR. JACKSON: Okay.

296 51:35

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I would ask that that be marked as the next in order of evidence.

297 51:41

JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So for this voir dire, we'll have separate evidence, right? Is this an exhibit number in the trial already?

298 51:48

MR. JACKSON: It has not been marked yet, so I'm fine with starting over, sort of for the purpose of the voir dire process. However the Court wishes to do it.

299 51:54

JUDGE CANNONE: So this will be a separate voir dire with --

300 51:58

COURT REPORTER: Voir dire one?

301 51:59

302 52:01

MR. JACKSON: So it's going to be Exhibit 1?

303 52:15

304 52:17

COURT REPORTER: Voir dire one.

305

(Whereupon Voir Dire Exhibit No. 1, Photograph, was marked as an exhibit.)

306 52:18

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, just -- I want to move this along. This has been marked, but I think --

307 52:23

JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on.

308 52:24

COURT REPORTER: I'm all set.

309 52:25

310 52:25

MR. JACKSON: I'm so sorry.

311 52:26

COURT REPORTER: No. Go ahead.

312 52:27

MR. JACKSON: This one of the three -- one of the three has already been marked, but if just for consistency, I'd rather mark it additionally for voir dire.

313 52:34

JUDGE CANNONE: Yes, we need a separate record for the voir dire.

314 52:37

MR. JACKSON: May I approach?

315 52:37

316 52:38

MR. JACKSON: This one's already been marked, but I'll remark it.

317 52:47

JUDGE CANNONE: And if you'd tell me the exhibit numbers that they are.

318 52:51

COURT REPORTER: In evidence or as we mark them?

319 52:56

JUDGE CANNONE: So you're putting these in now. There's no objection, Mr. Lally?

320 53:00

MR. LALLY: For purposes of this, no.

321 53:01

JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So we'll mark these now, but.

322 53:06

MR. JACKSON: May I approach?

323 53:07

324 53:15

MR. JACKSON: The one -- the one with the label 2858 on the bottom has previously been marked in the trial. I would ask that this be marked as the next in order for the voir dire.

325 53:26

JUDGE CANNONE: But what I want is the exhibit number at the trial.

326 53:29

MR. JACKSON: Oh, I'll get that for you. I believe it's Exhibit 19.

327 53:54

328 53:57

MR. JACKSON: Is it 19? It's 19.

329 53:58

JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. And is the third one also in evidence you said?

330 54:06

MR. JACKSON: Two of the three have not been marked. As soon as madam court reporter is ready.

331 54:10

COURT REPORTER: I'm all set. I'm ready.

332 54:11

JUDGE CANNONE: She's ready.

333 54:12

MR. JACKSON: May I just establish the foundation?

334 54:14

335 54:15

MR. JACKSON: The following two photographs that I just showed you, Doctor, do you recognize those?

336 54:19

337 54:20

MR. JACKSON: Did you also review those in terms of -- in furtherance of coming to your opinion -- opinions and conclusions?

338 54:27

339 54:28

MR. JACKSON: Do they also appear to be different photographs of John O'Keefe's arm?

340 54:33

341 54:33

MR. JACKSON: I would move for the admission of both of those, Your Honor, for purposes of the voir dire.

342 54:38

JUDGE CANNONE: There's been no objection to them. So they're in. They're already marked.

343 54:41

MR. JACKSON: I just need to know which one's two and which one's three. May I approach?

344 54:49

345

(Whereupon Voir Dire Exhibit No. 2, Photograph, was marked as an exhibit.)

346

(Whereupon Voir Dire Exhibit No. 3, Photograph, was marked as an exhibit.)

347 54:50

MR. JACKSON: Okay. I've got it. With the Court's permission may I publish --

348 55:07

349 55:08

MR. JACKSON: -- for voir dire?

350 55:12

351 55:14

MR. JACKSON: Is this a photograph of the -- of John O'Keefe's arm?

352 55:18

353 55:18

MR. JACKSON: Is this is one of the several photographs that you reviewed in coming to your opinions and conclusions?

354 55:24

355 55:25

MR. JACKSON: I want to ask you a couple of questions about this. There should be a laser pointer on the desk. Can you explain to the jurors what it is about the injuries that assisted you in coming to your opinion and conclusion that this is from an animal attack?

356 55:42

DR. RUSSELL: Okay. There's several patterns here. So for instance, let's look here, right near the elbow, the exterior part of the elbow. There's these two linear marks which appear to be from upper teeth, and two punctures below those which are superficial, meaning they didn't go very deep into the skin, but they appear from the lower teeth. So that's one pattern. There are -- there's another pattern close to the shoulder which shows parallel marks. There's two and maybe a third one in the middle, parallel marks that are oriented at a certain angle, and these are superficial wounds, which are consistent with teeth marks. They also could be possibly consistent with -- with nail marks, but.

357 56:45

MR. JACKSON: With what?

358 56:46

DR. RUSSELL: A nail from a claw.

359 56:48

MR. JACKSON: Claw?

360 56:48

DR. RUSSELL: Claw, yes.

361 56:49

MR. JACKSON: All right.

362 56:50

DR. RUSSELL: We have some more here, similar with -- from, you know, obviously different teeth involved, or different claws, and then over down here, closer to the wrist, we have an unusual pattern of at least four striations, the way I see it, at least four striations that I believe are caused from the teeth towards the front of the mouth near the arch. It appears that there's an arch pad in here, so.

363 57:26

MR. JACKSON: In a dog attack or in an animal attack in your experience -- let me take this one down. Just let's cover the ground on the three exhibits that we've already marked. Can we take a look at Exhibit 1?

364

(Voir Dire Exhibit 1 displayed.)

365 57:42

MR. JACKSON: Is this just --

366 57:45

MR. JACKSON: May I publish your honor?

367 57:49

368 57:50

MR. JACKSON: I apologize.

369 57:51

MR. JACKSON: Is this just a close-up of the same injuries?

370 57:57

371 57:58

MR. JACKSON: And do these appear to be consistent with what you just testified to in terms of either the teeth or claw marks, especially as it as it relates to the area of closest to the elbow?

372 58:10

373 58:11

MR. JACKSON: And then looking at Exhibit 3.

374 58:15

MR. JACKSON: May I publish?

375 58:16

376 58:17

MR. JACKSON: Is this a close-up view of the area closer to the wrist that indicated those parallel you used the word striations?

377 58:28

378 58:29

MR. JACKSON: All right. And these appear to be taken attended to the autopsy, as opposed to the other photograph, Exhibit 2, that was taken in the hospital; is that right?

379 58:38

DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.

380 58:39

MR. JACKSON: All right. And with that, would the time difference account for the slight change in the nature of the wound?

381 58:45

DR. RUSSELL: It could.

382 58:45

MR. JACKSON: The photograph of the wound I guess?

383 58:47

DR. RUSSELL: It could or a different technique, yes.

384 58:49

MR. JACKSON: Okay. You can take this down. Did you take into consideration the lack - in coming to your opinion and conclusion - the lack of other injuries, for instance, fractures, broken bones, or deep bruising, soft tissue injuries?

385 59:09

DR. RUSSELL: Oh, yes.

386 59:10

MR. JACKSON: How did that play into your opinion?

387 59:12

DR. RUSSELL: Well, so of course, I considered, you know, what else could have caused these wounds, you know, and before coming to my conclusion. And so I wanted to rule out other things, and there were no significant, major bodily injuries outside the head. There was nothing -- there were no fractions to the long bones, the chest, the pelvis, you know, the arms. So, yes, so having seen hundreds and hundreds of car accident victims and people hit by cars, I ruled that out very quickly.

388 59:53

MR. JACKSON: Okay. And in terms of the injuries that you did see, especially as they're attended to the arm, based on everything that we discussed today, is it your opinion, based on a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that those injuries are consistent with an animal attack as opposed to a vehicular -- motor vehicular pedestrian incident?

389 1:00:14

390 1:00:15

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. That's all I have.

391 1:00:21

JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Lally.

392

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LALLY:

393 1:00:26

MR. LALLY: Good morning, ma'am.

394 1:00:29

DR. RUSSELL: Good morning.

395 1:00:34

MR. LALLY: If I can take you back to you were talking about some police training that you had received when you were in the academy or while you were working with the police department here in Massachusetts; is that right?

396 1:00:46

397 1:00:46

MR. LALLY: Okay. What kind of training did -- or what did that training consist of?

398 1:00:52

DR. RUSSELL: Well, I attended and graduated from the standard police academy at that time, and then I took additional courses that were offered from the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council, and these were taught generally by experts in their fields, and they were on a variety of subjects that are listed in, you know, in my CV, including, you know, the hit-and-run accident investigation, you know, forensic --

399 1:01:22

MR. LALLY: Let me stop you there just for a minute, ma'am, Doctor. In reference to the -- your training as it pertains to hit-and-run accidents, what -- what did that training consist of?

400 1:01:31

DR. RUSSELL: Oh, well, mechanisms of how accidents occur. Mechanisms of how to determine, you know, what -- what vehicle was involved in an accident there. I don't, you know, it was a long, long time ago, but -- but, yeah, so determining if people were struck by vehicles, what vehicle was involved, or if it was auto versus auto accident, what vehicles were involved.

401 1:02:06

MR. LALLY: And I don't mean to belittle this training whatsoever, but is it fair to say that that was relatively rudimentary training that you received in the academy?

402 1:02:16

DR. RUSSELL: Probably. I would not -- yes, okay, probably.

403 1:02:17

MR. LALLY: You don't have any training in crash reconstruction or anything like that, correct?

404 1:02:23

DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.

405 1:02:24

MR. LALLY: And am I correct, and you indicated that you're board certified in emergency medicine; is that right?

406 1:02:29

DR. RUSSELL: That's correct.

407 1:02:30

MR. LALLY: And so you're not board certified in forensic pathology or anatomical pathology or any kind of pathology?

408 1:02:36

DR. RUSSELL: That's correct.

409 1:02:37

MR. LALLY: And the last time that you worked as a -- as a coroner, when was that?

410 1:02:44

DR. RUSSELL: The last time was in 1995 when I -- when I was doing autopsies for the coroner's office. I have since, though, consulted on numerous -- well, some cases from the LA coroner's office.

411 1:02:57

MR. LALLY: What, about, 30 years ago was that, is that about right?

412 1:03:00

DR. RUSSELL: For autopsy, yes.

413 1:03:01

MR. LALLY: Yes. Now, have you ever testified in a case in which either Mr. Jackson or Attorney Little were counsel?

414 1:03:10

DR. RUSSELL: Not that I'm aware of, no.

415 1:03:12

MR. LALLY: And when was it that you first were contacted in reference to this case?

416 1:03:17

DR. RUSSELL: The first contact was May 15.

417 1:03:19

MR. LALLY: May 15, of what year?

418 1:03:22

DR. RUSSELL: May 17, excuse me, of this year.

419 1:03:22

MR. LALLY: Of this year, 2024?

420 1:03:25

421 1:03:27

MR. LALLY: And you went through a list of things that you were provided, and you reviewed and you mentioned hospital photos, correct?

422 1:03:36

423 1:03:37

MR. LALLY: Autopsy photos; is that correct?

424 1:03:38

425 1:03:40

MR. LALLY: An autopsy report; is that correct?

426 1:03:42

427 1:03:43

MR. LALLY: Grand jury testimony from the medical examiner; is that correct?

428 1:03:45

429 1:03:46

MR. LALLY: A neuropathology report; is that correct?

430 1:03:48

431 1:03:49

MR. LALLY: A toxicology report; is that correct?

432 1:03:51

433 1:03:51

MR. LALLY: And then I think you also remembered some photos of some clothing items, is that correct, as well?

434 1:03:56

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, a shirt.

435 1:03:57

MR. LALLY: Did you review anything else?

436 1:03:59

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, hospital ER records.

437 1:04:01

MR. LALLY: Hospital ER records?

438 1:04:02

439 1:04:03

MR. LALLY: Anything else that you can think of?

440 1:04:10

441 1:04:11

MR. LALLY: Did you ask for anything else to review?

442 1:04:13

443 1:04:21

MR. LALLY: Were you told of any other material that was available for your review then that you weren't then given?

444 1:04:26

DR. RUSSELL: Well, I requested that my -- that I focus in on the wounds, so I didn't ask for a lot of material in this case.

445 1:04:37

MR. LALLY: But fair to say that you were looking for anything and anything -- anything and everything, excuse me, material to the wounds that you were asked to look at, correct?

446 1:04:44

DR. RUSSELL: They said -- please say that again?

447 1:04:46

MR. LALLY: Sure. Fair to say that you would want to look at anything and everything that was related to the wounds that you were asked to look at, correct?

448 1:04:53

449 1:04:54

MR. LALLY: And so did you make any specific requests as to what material you were provided, or were you just handed some material or forwarded some material and you looked at what you were given?

450 1:05:04

DR. RUSSELL: No, I requested that I have the autopsy photographs, the ER records, the ER photographs. I requested those.

451 1:05:12

MR. LALLY: Now, you mentioned some articles that you had written that were published back in 1996 and 1997 related to dog bites; is that right?

452 1:05:20

453 1:05:21

MR. LALLY: Are those publicly available articles?

454 1:05:24

455 1:05:25

MR. LALLY: And in those articles that you wrote, you were talking about law enforcement bites, correct?

456 1:05:33

457 1:05:34

MR. LALLY: So law enforcement K-9 bites typically involved what people call sort of a bite and hold technique; is that correct?

458 1:05:42

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, yes.

459 1:05:44

MR. LALLY: So is there a difference between, through your experience and the hundreds of dog bites that you've seen, is there a difference between what you would observe from a dog bite from a law enforcement K-9 versus a -- just your domesticated dog?

460 1:06:00

DR. RUSSELL: Well, yes. Now the study, one of those studies, was over 700 dog bite wounds, and there were two -- there were two techniques used at that time - bite and hold, and later on bark -- a bark and hold -- a bark and, you know, bark and alert or something of that nature. So there are different techniques, but, yes, to specifically answer that -- the question which was are they different from -- generally different from regular domestic dog bites? Yes.

461 1:06:36

MR. LALLY: Now, did you write a report in regard to your opinion that you've testified to here today?

462 1:06:40

463 1:06:40

MR. LALLY: And why not?

464 1:06:42

DR. RUSSELL: I don't think there was much time, and I didn't know if I was going to be actually testifying.

465 1:06:48

MR. LALLY: How long would it take you to write a report?

466 1:06:50

DR. RUSSELL: I wasn't asked to write a report. Excuse me.

467 1:06:54

MR. LALLY: Were you asked specifically not to write a report?

468 1:06:56

469 1:07:01

MR. LALLY: Now, at any point in time, did you ever look at anything related to Mr. O'Keefe's head injury?

470 1:07:07

DR. RUSSELL: Oh, yes.

471 1:07:07

MR. LALLY: So you reviewed reports in relation to that, correct?

472 1:07:11

473 1:07:11

MR. LALLY: Do you have any opinions as it pertains to that?

474 1:07:15

DR. RUSSELL: I would rather defer to the pathologist and neuropathologist on that.

475 1:07:36

MR. LALLY: So who contacted you about this case?

476 1:07:40

DR. RUSSELL: I contacted a district attorney that I had worked with in the past. We would -- we were discussing a different case, a case that I autopsied in 1995, and I mentioned that I heard that there was a dog -- there was a case in Massachusetts that might have been being handled by one of his colleagues, his former colleagues, and that there was an issue of whether something was a dog bite, and that I might be able to help in that case to clarify.

477 1:08:14

MR. LALLY: And so when you were provided this material, what is it that you were specifically asked to do?

478 1:08:22

DR. RUSSELL: To look at the wounds and the reports and the materials that were sent to me and render an opinion.

479 1:08:32

MR. LALLY: And so before you had even been provided any material, before you had even looked at anything, you had already heard information related to there being a dog bite involved in this case, correct?

480 1:08:44

DR. RUSSELL: I had heard that there was a controversy, that there's some certain wounds could have been a dog bite versus perhaps inflicted by a motor vehicle. That's what I had heard.

481 1:08:56

MR. LALLY: And so, ma'am, I'm just -- what I'm really trying to get at, Doctor, is sort of the timeline here. Okay. So you hear about this. When was that?

482 1:09:04

DR. RUSSELL: Sometime just before May 17.

483 1:09:07

MR. LALLY: So sometime just prior to that, you hear about some controversy in a case in Massachusetts involving a dog bite. On May 17, you get -- reached out to by who specifically?

484 1:09:19

DR. RUSSELL: His name is John Lewin. He's an attorney in the LA District Attorney's office.

485 1:09:25

MR. LALLY: And then who did you talk to after that?

486 1:09:28

DR. RUSSELL: I reached out to him. I said I might be able to clarify, and then he reached out to Mr. Jackson, I believe, and then Mr. Jackson contacted me.

487 1:09:41

MR. LALLY: And not asking specifically anything you spoke about, but at some point the discussion came specifically to dog bites, correct?

488 1:09:52

DR. RUSSELL: Yeah, he sent me the materials. He asked me my opinion.

489 1:09:56

MR. LALLY: He sent you the materials, asked you your opinion. When did you provide that opinion?

490 1:10:01

DR. RUSSELL: Probably the next day. Yes, I know it was the next day.

491 1:10:04

MR. LALLY: So the very next day on May 18, you provided an opinion?

492 1:10:08

493 1:10:08

MR. LALLY: And was that opinion provided in a written fashion, orally, how was that provided?

494 1:10:12

DR. RUSSELL: Orally.

495 1:10:14

MR. LALLY: So you reached out or to someone shortly before May 17, spoke to Mr. Jackson on the 17th, received all the material, and then had an opinion by May 18?

496 1:10:27

497 1:10:27

MR. LALLY: But you didn't write any of that down?

498 1:10:29

499 1:10:36

MR. LALLY: Now, beyond the materials that you were provided, what else were you told about the case?

500 1:10:41

DR. RUSSELL: I was told that the victim was a police officer. The decedent was a police officer. I was told that the -- well, the defendant had been charged, and I was told that the -- that there was a controversy about whether or not these injuries had been caused by motor vehicle. And I was also told, and I read in the medical record, that the decedent was found outdoors, I believe in the snow and hypothermic.

501 1:11:28

MR. LALLY: Now, in regard to what you reviewed, you didn't review any investigative reports; is that correct?

502 1:11:33

DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.

503 1:11:34

MR. LALLY: You didn't review any witness statements; is that correct?

504 1:11:37

DR. RUSSELL: That's correct.

505 1:11:38

MR. LALLY: You didn't review any lab reports as far as from the forensic lab or anything like that?

506 1:11:44

DR. RUSSELL: I reviewed the toxicology report.

507 1:11:46

MR. LALLY: Beyond that, any other --

508 1:11:48

DR. RUSSELL: If it was part of the autopsy report, I reviewed it.

509 1:11:48

MR. LALLY: So you reviewed every thing attended to the medical examiner's file; is that correct?

510 1:11:55

511 1:11:55

MR. LALLY: Okay. But nothing from the lab beyond that?

512 1:11:59

DR. RUSSELL: I don't believe I did.

513 1:12:05

MR. LALLY: Now, this first instance when you say you heard about it, how did you hear about it?

514 1:12:11

DR. RUSSELL: Well, I believe -- I believe it was via a headline that I received in my email from the from "Boston Globe" headline. You know, it was some kind of a, you know, there was some kind of interesting case. And I got it as an email and I looked into it.

515 1:12:32

MR. LALLY: And when was that?

516 1:12:33

DR. RUSSELL: Well, that was that week in May that, you know, just a few days before May 17.

517 1:12:42

MR. LALLY: Did you subscribe to "The Boston Globe" online.

518 1:12:45

DR. RUSSELL: I did at that time. I have not renewed it.

519 1:12:48

MR. LALLY: How long had you been a subscriber to "The Boston Globe" prior to --

520 1:12:54

MR. JACKSON: Objection.

521 1:12:55

JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it.

522 1:12:56

DR. RUSSELL: Probably a year or six months. Six months to a year.

523 1:13:02

MR. LALLY: And there was never any headlines or anything else that you saw about this prior to that -- that week just before May 17?

524 1:13:09

DR. RUSSELL: Not that I paid attention to.

525 1:13:12

MR. LALLY: I have nothing further, Your Honor.

526 1:13:15

JUDGE CANNONE: Anything further, Mr. Jackson?

527 1:13:17

MR. JACKSON: Nothing further.

528 1:13:18

JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So since this is a voir dire, I get to ask questions, Doctor.

529 1:13:21

DR. RUSSELL: Oh, yes. Okay.

530 1:13:22

JUDGE CANNONE: I just have a couple of questions for you. I don't think I really heard you. So could you tell me again what your opinion is, and to what degree you hold that opinion?

531 1:13:32

DR. RUSSELL: Yes. These injuries in the arm are -- my opinion is that they are the result of animal bites or scratches.

532 1:13:43

JUDGE CANNONE: Do you know what kind of animal?

533 1:13:44

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, most likely dog, large dog. And I'm very reasonable -- very sure to, you know, what's the word I want, medical certainty, very -- the high degree of medical certainty.

534 1:14:01

JUDGE CANNONE: Reasonable degree of medical certainty?

535 1:14:03

DR. RUSSELL: Yes, definitely.

536 1:14:05

JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. And another question. So I received information that you also viewed all reports associated with Chloe and the dog's prior bite history. Did you review those?

537 1:14:18

DR. RUSSELL: No, I don't recall ever seeing anything like that.

538 1:14:21

JUDGE CANNONE: And that you also reviewed the UC Davis DNA testing results submission forms.

539 1:14:30

DR. RUSSELL: No, I don't recall seeing them.

540 1:14:33

JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Any follow-up? Any questions based on my questions?

541 1:14:38

MR. LALLY: Not for the Commonwealth.

542 1:14:39

MR. JACKSON: No, Your Honor.

543 1:14:41

JUDGE CANNONE: All right. You are all set, Doctor. I don't know yet whether you'll be testifying.

544 1:14:45

DR. RUSSELL: Okay.

545 1:14:46

JUDGE CANNONE: We'll try and let you know. You're going to be around for a few days?

546 1:14:50