Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveWolfe-Rentschler-Voir-Dires
490 linesJUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. [unintelligible] So I would like to hear argument on this witness before we hear the other witnesses. And — Mr. Yannetti — I asked you the other day whether she reached out to you or you reached out to her, and you said there was an intermediary. But my concern was whether she came out of nowhere and reached out about this case. And that seems to — "it wasn't Mr. [unintelligible] — it was me." Okay. All right. So the question I asked was answered pretty much by this witness — whether she saw something and decided she wanted to come forward. All right. It's the Commonwealth's motion — what are you asking me to do again?
MR. LALLY: I found a violation of Rule 14, and there are two concerns here, the the competency of the witness's testimony, how much she can testify to, whether she should testify at all.
JUDGE CANNONE: What is it you're asking me, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: I'm asking that the witness be excluded from testifying at the trial, for the violation of Rule 14. Specifically, I believe it's Rule 14(b)(6). This is a witness, as the court picked up on, that reached out — albeit through an intermediary — with reference to just sort of discovering or coming upon this case several weeks into the trial. It is concerning given the fact that the witness represented that she had a subscription to the Globe online, received word of this, and the first time that she had seen it or it grabbed her attention was in that first week of May when, as the court is well aware, there's been widespread media coverage — primarily through the Boston Globe — for years at this point.
MR. LALLY: The limitations of the testimony are also concerning because the disclosure from counsel indicated, again as the court had noted, I didn't want to get into too much for purposes of this voir dire, but there was additional material that was indicated in the disclosure that the witness had reviewed, including the UC Davis related to the canine DNA, or the lack thereof, as well as — forgive me — the dog bite history of that specific dog, which also I would note for the court includes photographs of what a dog bite from that specific dog looks like. And that specifically apparently was not provided to this witness, who then opines — or infers, at least — that that dog was the cause of these particular injuries.
MR. LALLY: However, she was not shown specifically anything to do with that bite history by way of reports or photographs. So those, juxtaposed, are coupled with the immensely late disclosure. I mean, we're talking about at least the sixth week of trial by the time this witness is even mentioned, not on the defendant's witness list, not mentioned at any point in time during the pendency of the case, and then sort of pops up in the middle of May. And to the point that the limited amount of material or information that's provided by counsel as far as disclosure and opinion doesn't come until today. So for all those reasons, I, on behalf of the Commonwealth, am requesting that her testimony in its entirety be excluded from the trial.
MR. JACKSON: Your honor, exclusion is the highest form of punishment. It's the highest form of sanction that the court has available to it — just to put a fine point on it, it is a dire, dire remedy. And I know the court has mentioned two or three times "I'm finding a violation of Rule 14" — that sounds as if the court is suggesting, or has inferred, that we did something wrong. We didn't do anything wrong. As the court learned, I didn't reach out to her. She reached out—
JUDGE CANNONE: I asked you that the other day, though, and you— I was told that you reached out to her through an intermediary. I wasn't told she reached out to you through an intermediary.
MR. JACKSON: I don't know that there's a difference. What I was trying to get at is: is this somebody who read about this case and said, you know, I want to be part of that? That's what I was trying to get at.
JUDGE CANNONE: I think it was pretty clear, Mr. Jackson. Go ahead, continue with your argument.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, I did not misrepresent. I didn't say that. I take offense at the court's tone.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes, you did say that. You just said that.
MR. JACKSON: I just heard the testimony, and it's not what I said the other day. I know a person in the Los Angeles DA's office. I received a text message from that person saying there's someone who reached out to me who said I might be able to elucidate on this controversy concerning the dog bites. I did reach out to her. So when you asked me who reached out to whom — I reached out to her through an intermediary, my friend in the DA's office back in Los Angeles County.
JUDGE CANNONE: So maybe it wasn't clear what I was looking for. I think it was clear. Go ahead, continue with your argument on this.
MR. JACKSON: My point is Rule 14 requires a sanction if in fact the attorney has done something wrong — in other words, it connotes the idea that we're doing something by actively hiding evidence, or holding back evidence, or not providing evidence that you know you're going to use at some point, in an effort to take a tactical advantage. And the sanction for that is exclusion. I've never met this woman. First time I laid eyes on her was during the process after she flew out here to engage this voir dire process. She indicated she could potentially provide some information about this controversy concerning dog bites. I then sent her materials, I talked to her, I sent her materials.
MR. JACKSON: I found her to be incredibly credible, I found her to be experienced, and I found her to be knowledgeable in this very specific area, which is rare — there's not that many people who have published, doctors who have published, in the area of dog bites specifically. So I thought it makes sense for me to reach out to her and talk to her, which is exactly what we did, and within a couple of days — literally, you could almost count it by the hours — of me receiving her information, we then had a discussion amongst ourselves: is this somebody that we want to present on the defense side, on the defense case? And we turned the information over to Mr. Lally.
MR. JACKSON: I understand that it was well into the trial, but that's not a fault of ours, and I don't think the sanction of exclusion is necessary or appropriate to punish Ms. Read from having an experienced witness testify in rebuttal to ultimately what Dr. Scordi-Bello and the Commonwealth are going to present in their case in chief. That's what she's going to do — she's going to present contrary evidence, or an alternative theory, of where the injuries came from. To a person, everybody on the Commonwealth's side who can elucidate about this has said those injuries come from a tail light, including Mr. Paul yesterday. We have contrary evidence, and Ms. Read should be entitled to present that evidence, even though it came late.
MR. JACKSON: It didn't come late by any fault of ours, and I don't believe that the Commonwealth has made out a prejudice that they can't overcome. It's late, obviously. Mr. Lally is a skilled lawyer — there's nothing to say that he can't, or hasn't been able to, prepare for the cross-examination or for an examination in front of the jury. And I just don't think exclusion is appropriate.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So the second part of this argument — and I'll start with the Commonwealth first — in your motion to exclude, you also raise Daubert-type concerns. So, Mr. Lally, are there portions, if I permit her to testify, focused specifically on the part of her opinion where she says — I guess the defense expects her to be able to say she will testify that these injuries are inconsistent with having been struck by a vehicle, road rash, or scratches from broken glass or tail light material? I think you have an uphill battle on that part, Mr. Jackson. But Commonwealth, what are you saying — if she testifies, what should she be able to testify to? And don't just say nothing — I want some input.
MR. LALLY: No, no. If the court were to permit the doctor to testify, your honor, what I would submit would be permissible testimony from a legal standpoint — and some factual questions with regard to that. But from a legal standpoint, I think the court could permit her to testify as to the injuries that she observed, her work history in that area observing prior injuries related to animal attacks, and whatever consistency she believes that they have with that. I do not think it would be proper to allow this witness to testify or opine anything about the inconsistency with regard to pedestrian injuries.
MR. LALLY: I don't think any proper foundation has been laid for that, whether it be through experiential knowledge in relation to that, or any sort of specialized training or knowledge, or anything to do with that. Anything from a forensic pathology or anatomical pathology perspective I think should also be out of bounds and excluded with regard to this witness. She's certainly a very experienced emergency room physician, so anything in relation to that I think is permissible.
MR. LALLY: But as far as experience when it comes to motor vehicle crashes or pedestrian crashes — of which the court is well aware there are a litany of different types of interactions a pedestrian can have with a motor vehicle in a collision sequence — simply saying "Well, there were no injuries to the leg so it couldn't have been a motor vehicle collision" is just plain wrong and not backed up by science or anything else that this witness could testify to from the very limited experience she has in that realm.
MR. LALLY: So if the witness were permitted by the court to testify, I would submit that her testimony should be relegated to simply what, if any, opinions — her experience obviously — and then what, if any, opinion she draws with regard to the causation of the injuries on the right arm, as it pertains to consistency there. But I venture to guess that it's likely that those are probably also going to be — in her opinion — consistent with many other causes beyond that, if she's being reasonable.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: I'll submit, your honor. I have no issue with—
JUDGE CANNONE: I just said I'll submit.
MR. JACKSON: Submitting. I have no issue with limiting her testimony to the animal attack issue — the dog attack issue. I didn't — as I noted, I didn't spend any time; I think I may have asked one question concerning the motor vehicle incident. I have no problem if the court wants her testimony limited to the dog bite aspect and not the motor vehicle aspect. I wasn't planning on going into that aspect anyway. I've got another pathologist who's going to do exactly that.
JUDGE CANNONE: But you did go through it with her and it's on your disclosure.
MR. JACKSON: It is, but I have no problem editing.
JUDGE CANNONE: So why is it on the disclosure — what
JUDGE CANNONE: turned over — that she viewed all reports associated with Chloe's bite history and the UC Davis DNA testing?
MR. JACKSON: Why is that in there? Because we sent that in a Dropbox — we sent everything in a Dropbox and I assumed that she reviewed it. She must not have seen it or opened it or reviewed it. I didn't know.
JUDGE CANNONE: But that's what was said to her — everything that's in the disclosure. If she's permitted to testify, you led her through quite a bit today. You won't be able to — I mean, she struggled with to what degree of certainty she held an opinion, she struggled to what she viewed, she didn't write a report. I have to consider all of these things too as the gatekeeper as to whether she can actually assist the jury. So I'm not deciding this right here. Mr. Lally, if I do permit her to testify, I will give you time to absorb this testimony and to find an expert in rebuttal for this.
MR. LALLY: How long might something like that take?
JUDGE CANNONE: Not terribly long. As far as preparation, I can't give an exact time frame on that as far as a rebuttal witness. I'd say a week at the most.
MR. LALLY: A week from today?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Why don't you start looking, at least.
MR. LALLY: All right.
JUDGE CANNONE: Well, I'll decide — I won't know until Thursday.
MR. LALLY: Sure. All right.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, anything else on this witness?
MR. JACKSON: Submitted.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, all right. Next witness, please.
MR. JACKSON: With regard to Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Rentschler, this is a different scenario, and I'm presuming that the court is asking for a Daubert hearing on their qualification — for —
JUDGE CANNONE: Well, I want to know who did what. I want to know — they say "we" — I want to know who did what.
MR. JACKSON: So is the court suggesting that I go through the entire — their entire testimony of exactly what they did, their testing, their opinions, conclusions, the bases of their opinions, conclusions?
JUDGE CANNONE: However you want to do it, Mr. Jackson. We're here today on the Commonwealth's motion. I realize that — it's not the Commonwealth's motion to depose our experts. The Commonwealth's motion is they're not qualified as accident reconstructionists.
MR. JACKSON: I don't need to go — and I'm not inclined to give them a free bite at the apple to cross-examine these witnesses twice on the basis of their opinion. I will go through — I think, to the court's satisfaction — I don't think it's going to take long to figure out that they're extraordinarily qualified to render opinions, but I don't think it's incumbent upon me to walk through their entire testimony and give the Commonwealth a free bite of the apple like it's a deposition.
JUDGE CANNONE: Whatever you want to do. I'm not telling you what to do.
JUDGE CANNONE: Whatever you want to do.
COURT OFFICER: Please be upstanding for the Court. ... the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
COURT OFFICER: Thank you. Please speak very loudly into the microphone.
JUDGE CANNONE: Whenever you're ready, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your honor. Sir, could you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?
DR. WOLFE: Daniel Wolfe. Last name spelled W-O-L-F-E.
MR. JACKSON: So what do you do for a living?
DR. WOLFE: I am the director of accident reconstruction at a company known as ARCCA.
MR. JACKSON: And tell us a little bit about ARCCA. If you can, explain to the court what ARCCA is and what its primary mission is.
DR. WOLFE: So ARCCA is a forensic consulting engineering company. We have a variety of disciplines that include biomechanics, failure analysis, human factors, premise liability, crashworthiness, and accident reconstruction.
MR. JACKSON: You said that you're the current director of accident reconstruction, correct?
DR. WOLFE: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Is that a specialty of ARCCA specifically?
DR. WOLFE: Yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: And what sort of contracts does ARCCA routinely engage in?
DR. WOLFE: We typically work for law firms, insurance carriers.
MR. JACKSON: What about other clientele? For instance, maybe it's an insurance carrier or a law firm, but what about the ultimate client — the military, the Department of Defense? Have you contracted with other entities or agencies, sporting agencies?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly, yes. We've done research for the military, we do player safety for the NHL. So yes, we are involved in a number of research projects as well.
MR. JACKSON: And in terms of ARCCA and its commissions and consultation, is it known both nationally and internationally? Is it recognized as a leader in the area of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: As the Director of accident reconstruction, do you specialize in not only accident reconstruction but human factors as well?
DR. WOLFE: Yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Can you give me a synopsis of the professional discipline of accident reconstruction? What is accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think that's a very broad topic. I look at the cases that come across my desk. I've been involved with pedestrian impacts — and that can be pedestrians struck by the side of vehicles, fronts, backs, getting run over by vehicles, being struck by a vehicle then projected into another vehicle. I've dealt with your simple fender-bender collisions, I've dealt with collisions that involve 60-car pileups on a highway. So again, accident reconstruction in terms of the scope for a case can really vary case-to-case depending on the facts and circumstances of that case.
MR. JACKSON: And would you say — when you say "dealt with," are you talking about literally going into — from an engineering and a scientific standpoint — trying to reconstruct what happened, what the causal effects were of that accident, and what the results were — the results in damage or injuries were?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely.
MR. JACKSON: What about human factors? What does that discipline entail? What is human factors?
DR. WOLFE: Well, to give you an example of that, I do a lot of nighttime visibility work — where, for instance, let's say a pedestrian's coming out to the roadway at night. Maybe it's not a lit roadway and you're relying on your vehicle headlights to illuminate that pedestrian. So it's determining when would a driver recognize that individual on the roadway based upon the headlights, if there is any artificial lighting, their clothing — and then we look at how do drivers respond based upon that scenario that they're presented with. So we know that response times are different depending on the hazard that's presented to them. So if it's a pedestrian coming to the roadway, it's a vehicle stopping in front of you — so that's the application of human factors.
DR. WOLFE: And that might include everything from passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles, bicycle issues, motorcycle issues, things of that nature.
MR. JACKSON: Yes sir. Okay, what education, training, and background qualifies you to perform the duties that you've just described as director of accident reconstruction at ARCCA?
DR. WOLFE: In terms of my educational background, I received a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from James Madison University back in 2012, along with a minor in mathematics. Some of my coursework while at James Madison included courses in physics, statics, dynamics, kinematics, material science, and the — your typical engineering sciences. Subsequent to my undergraduate degree, I then went on to the University of Delaware to pursue my PhD in electrical and computer engineering with a concentration in electromagnetics and photonics.
MR. JACKSON: Did your research area also include physics, in addition to electromagnetics?
DR. WOLFE: Yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Optics?
DR. WOLFE: Yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Photonics?
DR. WOLFE: Yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: And lighting?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Are you accredited as a traffic accident reconstructionist?
DR. WOLFE: Yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: By whom?
DR. WOLFE: By an organization known as ACTAR, which is the Accreditation Commission for Traffic Accident Reconstructionists.
MR. JACKSON: Are you trained in photogrammetry to determine vehicle crash and map scene evidence from photographs?
DR. WOLFE: Yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: In other words, looking at a photograph rather than being at the scene — that is a specific area of training that you've engaged in?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Are you trained in Bosch crash data retrieval analysis?
DR. WOLFE: Yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Otherwise known as CDR analysis, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: In terms of professional associations and accreditations, are you certified by the Society of Automotive Engineers?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, I'm a member of that organization.
MR. JACKSON: What about being a member of the Optical Society of America?
DR. WOLFE: Yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Illuminating Engineering Society?
DR. WOLFE: Yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: And finally, the National Association of Professional Accident Reconstruction Specialists?
DR. WOLFE: Yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: You're accredited by all of those organizations, is that right?
DR. WOLFE: I'm a member of all of those, yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Have you authored peer-reviewed articles in the area that we've just discussed?
DR. WOLFE: I've authored a number of papers in the field of physics, and one of my most recent publications was that dealing with Toyota and Lexus vehicle control history records in 2021.
MR. JACKSON: Did you author or co-author a peer-reviewed article known as *Collision*, the international compendium for crash research, dealing with vehicle control history and braking issues?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Have you qualified in other courts to testify as an expert in the area of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Importantly, were you hired by the defense in this case?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Before this morning you walked into court, have you and I ever met face to face?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: In terms of the commission that you were asked to undertake in this case, did that have anything to do with the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did that have anything to do with the Commonwealth?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: So a third party agency hired you and commissioned you or ARCCA with the responsibility of doing an accident reconstruction in this case, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: The female to my left, sitting here — you ever seen her before?
DR. WOLFE: Nope.
MR. JACKSON: You know who she is?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: How many times have you been qualified in other courts to testify as an expert in the area of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: I think that's around 20 times to date, in both Federal and State Court.
MR. JACKSON: Just State Court?
DR. WOLFE: Multiple states.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. Your analysis, conclusions, and opinions — completely independent, whatever they are — those analysis, conclusions, and opinions in this case are completely independent of the defense and of the Commonwealth. Have I got that right?
DR. WOLFE: Right. It's based on the evidence. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you're not paid by either side here in this courtroom, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You and your team were asked to undertake a review for purposes of accident reconstruction of the case that's now pending before the court. Is that right?
DR. WOLFE: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Who at ARCCA was assigned to the team who would ultimately undertake that analysis?
DR. WOLFE: So it was myself, Dr. Andrew Rentschler, and Scott Kline.
MR. JACKSON: Scott Kline has a Master of Science, is that right?
DR. WOLFE: I believe he's got a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering, yes.
MR. JACKSON: In engineering, correct. All right. And Dr. Rentschler is a PhD in what area?
DR. WOLFE: Biomechanical engineering.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Were you provided and did you review certain materials in furtherance of your consultation in this matter?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Can I have just a moment, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to use my time efficiently, Doctor. I'm going to read through a number of materials that you reviewed. Before I do that, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I just want you to take a look at the first two pages of that document. Tell me if you recognize that.
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: What is that? What are those two pages?
DR. WOLFE: These are the first two pages from the report that ARCCA issued in regards to this matter.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see a list of 14 items on those two pages?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Is that an accurate reflection of the items that you were provided by this other agency to review in terms of coming to your opinions and conclusions concerning this case?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Those items include the Norfolk State Police [unintelligible] homicide death report, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of State Police crime scene report, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: The OCME dispatch removal report, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Photographs of the incident location, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Videos of the incident location, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Photographs of the 2021 Lexus LX570, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Photographs of recovered evidence, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Crash data retrieval report from the 2021 Lexus LX570, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Report of autopsy, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Autopsy photographs?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Three-dimensional laser scan data of a Lexus LX570?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: A VINlink report sheet for the 2021 Lexus LX570?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: ExpertAutoStats data sheets for a 2021 Lexus LX570?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And publicly available literature, including but not limited to the documents cited within the report — learned treatises, textbooks, and scientific standards, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All of those items and data were reviewed by you and your team in coming to your conclusions and opinions in this case, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: And I'd like to ask you one other series of questions concerning sort of who did what. Your report indicates that there were — in no small part — two undertakings, if I can ask them in terms of pillars: the damage to the vehicle and the injuries to the body of John O'Keefe, correct?
DR. WOLFE: I would say that's a fair characterization, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And I may be butchering this a bit because I'm not being very scientific, but were you more responsible for the vehicle damage or the injury damage?
DR. WOLFE: The vehicle damage.
MR. JACKSON: And who on your team was more responsible for the injury damage?
DR. WOLFE: That would be Dr. Andrew Rentschler.
MR. JACKSON: Obviously, Dr. Wolfe, in coming to your opinions and conclusions concerning the damage to the vehicle, you had to consider the damage to the human being, correct — John O'Keefe, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And as the team leader, in terms of Dr. Rentschler coming to his conclusions and opinions concerning the damage to the human being, he also had to consider the damage to the vehicle and the interplay of the two, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. We work together.
MR. JACKSON: Is that — I was just going to say, is that how you two and Mr. Kline work together to come to the opinions and conclusions that are cited in your multi-page report?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: That's all I have.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. Good morning, sir.
DR. WOLFE: Good morning.
MR. LALLY: Now, you went through a list of about 14 things that are contained within your report that your firm and your agency was provided with, that you reviewed, correct?
DR. WOLFE: That is correct.
MR. LALLY: You specifically reviewed all 14 of those things, or was that done as sort of a team?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, I looked through all the documents.
MR. LALLY: You personally looked at all 14 of those items that are listed within the report?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And you indicate that — your opinions, or what you did in this case — that you were asked to answer specific questions, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: It wasn't like you were just tasked with "here's some facts, go do — or take a look at a crash reconstruction" or create a crash reconstruction. You were asked very specific questions and you tried to answer them the best you could, correct?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that there were specific questions. I think ultimately it was an open-ended question.
MR. LALLY: But related to two — you testified as to two specific areas that your firm and your agency looked at, right?
DR. WOLFE: Those are the disciplines that the report covers, yes.
MR. LALLY: You testified about some other areas of expertise — as far as human factors, visibility, luminescence, things like that — you didn't do any of those things here, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Wasn't part of my scope in this case.
MR. LALLY: And the scope in your case, you indicate that it was based on the evidence, correct?
DR. WOLFE: That is correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, to be fair, that's based on the evidence that you were provided, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: So what did Mr. Kline do?
DR. WOLFE: So as a part of the engagement with the entity that ultimately retained us — due to the confidentiality of it, only those who had access to the material, to the file, were allowed to review it and discuss it — and essentially Scott Kline served as kind of another reconstruction expert to essentially bounce ideas off of and help with the review.
MR. LALLY: So for lack of a better term, sort of provided — let's say — a technical review of your work and Dr. Rentschler's work, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: I would say assist us with the analysis, yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, obviously your firm or your agency issued a report in relation to what you did, correct?
DR. WOLFE: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And you've obviously had time to review that report as far as what's contained in there factually, as well as conclusions and opinions, things of that nature?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: So is it your testimony that anything that has to do — anything factually, conclusions, opinions, or otherwise — in relation to the motor vehicle damage, those are your opinions, those are your conclusions, correct?
DR. WOLFE: I would say that's fair, yes.
MR. LALLY: And again, based on the evidence that you were provided, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And so the facts or evidence or conclusions or opinions related to injuries to Mr. O'Keefe, that was Dr. Rentschler's area, is that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: Dr. Rentschler, yes.
MR. LALLY: And again, that was based on the evidence, or whatever he was provided, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Which would be the same materials that you had testified that you had, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: I have nothing further.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: All right, so, Doctor, I just have one question for you. What specifically were you asked to do?
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry, I didn't —
MR. JACKSON: What specifically were you asked to do?
DR. WOLFE: So the agency that retained us gave us a selected quantity of file material related to this case, and essentially left it as an open-ended question. Ultimately, was the evidence consistent with a pedestrian interaction between Mr. John O'Keefe and the ...Lexus.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You said "selected quantity of information." Who selected that information?
DR. WOLFE: As far as I'm concerned, it would be the Department of Justice and the FBI.
MR. JACKSON: All right, and they just gave you what they wanted to give you?
DR. WOLFE: As far as we know, we had no say in what material was handed over to us.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, all right. Thank you very much.
JUDGE CANNONE: Any questions based on my questions?
MR. LALLY: Just briefly. And I apologize for this — I'm just unaware, is it Mr. Wolfe or Dr. Wolfe?
DR. WOLFE: Dr. Wolfe is fine.
MR. LALLY: So, Dr. Wolfe, when you say that you were asked specifically whether or not the evidence — the limited scope that you were providing — was consistent with a pedestrian collision, were you asked, um, sort of in general terms as far as any type of pedestrian collision, or were you asked specifically as far as, um, biomechanically, could the injury to the back of Mr. O'Keefe's head have been caused by contact — how open-ended was this question?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I think it relates to: is the vehicle damage consistent with the pedestrian impact, and are the injuries consistent with the pedestrian impact? And again, the whole panoply of injuries.
MR. LALLY: Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry, what was your question?
MR. LALLY: Let me rephrase. So did anybody specifically ask you to determine whether or not the injuries to the back of Mr. O'Keefe's head could have been caused by a motor vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that they asked us specifically. Again, they basically asked us to perform an accident reconstruction and biomechanical analysis and basically tell them our findings, and these are findings.
MR. LALLY: And in the materials that you reviewed, did you see anything in there — of any sort of statement, suggestion, intimation, anything at all — that suggested that the injuries or the fracture to the back of Mr. O'Keefe's head was caused by a motor vehicle in terms of direct contact?
DR. WOLFE: No, I don't believe so.
MR. LALLY: Nothing? Anything? Nothing?
DR. WOLFE: Nothing.
MR. LALLY: All right, Dr. Wolfe, you are all set, sir. Thank you.
COURT OFFICER: ...just going to ask you to be mindful of the cord, and you step up. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do.
COURT OFFICER: Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, whenever you're ready, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your Honor. Sir, could you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Certainly. Dr. Andrew John Rentschler, R-e-n-t-s-c-h-l-e-r.
MR. JACKSON: Sir, what do you do for a living?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I'm a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstructionist.
MR. JACKSON: What area of the country do you live in?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I live in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
MR. JACKSON: What is your title currently at your company?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I am a vice president and director of biomechanics for the Midwest Division.
MR. JACKSON: And what is the name of that company?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It's called ARCCA LLC.
MR. JACKSON: And what is the main mission of ARCCA? What does ARCCA do?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So ARCCA is an engineering consulting company and we have several different types of engineers — biomechanical engineers such as myself, accident reconstructionists, mechanical engineers. We look at crashworthiness, safety of vehicles and other types of events. We really do all types of work. We do litigation-type work as well as research and development for government and private entities as well.
MR. JACKSON: Let me have just a moment. Can you give me a brief synopsis of the professional discipline of injury causation biomechanics? What is that?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So injury causation biomechanics is really applying traditional engineering principles to the human body. As a biomechanical engineer, I look at the response of the body to accelerations and forces and determine how an injury occurs. You know, an injury to the human body is just an engineering problem. For instance, a mechanical engineer might look at a piece of steel — the size of the steel and the shape of it — and if you apply a force in a certain direction that steel will bend and eventually break. Well, we do the same thing, but we look at the human body — how much force do you have to apply, and how does that force have to be applied, in what direction or manner, to get a specific injury — whether it's a skull fracture, an intervertebral disc injury, a concussion?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So we look at the response of the human body to different forces and accelerations in different types of settings, and ultimately our hope is to help mitigate or prevent injuries, whether it's in a motor vehicle accident, sports setting, industrial setting, auto-pedestrian impact — try and make products and environments safer for individuals.
MR. JACKSON: And that's different from what medical doctors do, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It is, yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: A little boy walks into an ER with a broken arm — medical doctor wants to reset the arm and fix the arm, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's right, yes.
MR. JACKSON: What does a biomechanical engineer want to learn about the broken arm?
DR. RENTSCHLER: We want to learn how that break or that fracture occurs. I always say that we kind of approach injuries from two different directions. You have an injury occur — after it occurs, moving forward, that's when the medical doctors get involved. They diagnose the injury, determine the best way to treat it, what's the prognosis. As a biomechanical engineer, I kind of take the reverse direction. We look at: here's the injury, here's what's diagnosed — well, how did that injury occur? How much force do you have to apply to cause that fracture, how did the bone have to be loaded, how did it bend to actually cause a specific type of fracture? So we really kind of approach the injury from two different directions.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. And given that scientific approach, oftentimes you can come to conclusions and opinions — scientific conclusions and opinions — about the causation of an injury, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Absolutely, yeah. And ultimately that's what biomechanical engineering is — how does an injury occur, why did it occur, in what type of setting did the injury actually occur, what type of loading, and what type of kinematics do you need to have this injury actually occur?
MR. JACKSON: Can you tell the court a brief synopsis on the discipline of human factors? What part does that play in what you do for a living?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, human factors is a large part of it as well. From a biomechanical standpoint, we look at the body — we have to know anatomy, we have to know the makeup of the body — and then human factors plays a part as well, in how individuals respond or what their response is to different types of environments or reactions. It really all plays into looking at a specific event — how did someone react, how did their body move, how was the body loaded? There are all different types of factors that you have to apply — the human factors, kinematics, kinetics, biomechanical, musculoskeletal interactions. It's all these different factors that are really involved in performing an analysis to ultimately look at injury causation.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Rentschler, as the Director of biomechanics and human factors at ARCCA, what education, training, and background qualifies you to perform those duties?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, I got my Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering with a minor in biomedical engineering from Carnegie Mellon University in 1995. I then went on to get my master's in bioengineering and biomechanics from the University of Pittsburgh in 2002, and then I got my PhD, or my doctorate, in bioengineering and biomechanics from the University of Pittsburgh in 2004.
MR. JACKSON: Can you give us a brief work history up to and before ARCCA?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Sure. So I got my PhD in 2004, and then since then I've worked in the consulting field for biomechanics. I've worked for a company out in Davis, California for a while called Biomechanical Engineering Accident Reconstruction. I then joined another engineering company in Jacksonville, Florida for about three years called Chesapeake Engineering and Design, and I have now been with ARCCA for approximately 16 and a half years.
MR. JACKSON: And in those positions, and in your position currently as a director at ARCCA, do you specialize in research and analysis attendant to evaluating and studying the relationships between crash injuries, crash forces, human kinematics, and human tolerances?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do. That's really what I do on a daily basis, whether it be in litigation-type cases or the research and development we do for different companies or entities, or even internal research that we perform at ARCCA.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Rentschler, what professional associations and accreditations do you have?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I'm a member of the American Society for Mechanical Engineers, as well as the Society for Automotive Engineering. Now, with respect to biomechanical engineering, there's no actual professional licensure for biomechanical engineering, so a PhD, or a doctorate, is the highest degree you can have in that field.
MR. JACKSON: Are you also a reviewer for Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Biomechanical Engineering Online?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I am, yes. Usually if you publish articles in a journal, that journal comes back to you and asks you to be a reviewer, so I certainly do that type of work as well.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about your ongoing education — your professional education after your PhD. Have you continued your education in areas of biomechanics and high-impact injuries from the NTSB?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have. I've taken classes through the NTSB and SAE, the IPTM — police technology management training center — there are several different entities I've taken biomechanical and accident reconstruction courses through. So the alphabet soup, if you will, of biomechanical engineering and human factors.
MR. JACKSON: Right, yes, and you continue that today?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do, yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Any specific training in human kinematics?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, I do have training in
MR. JACKSON: — human kinematics. Just out of curiosity, how do you define what is kinematics?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So kinematics is the motion of the human body and looking at how the body moves, irrespective of the forces that cause that motion. So we're really looking at — for instance — how one body part moves with respect to the next. We can see how the body moves as a result of a specific type of event.
MR. JACKSON: You mentioned injury mechanics previously, in one of your answers. What is injury mechanics and how does that relate to biomechanics?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So again, that's a subset of biomechanics — mechanics looking at the response and the strength of the different parts of tissue of the human body. On a very basic level, to get an injury — to have an injury occur — you need really two factors: you need enough force to cause injury to the tissue, and you need that force applied in the right manner. So if I wanted to fracture my elbow, I certainly couldn't take a hit on my shoulder and expect my elbow to fracture — the force is exerted in the wrong location. And likewise, if I just lean my elbow on the counter here, that's not enough force. So you need the force; you need the application of that force in the correct manner to produce what we call an injury mechanism.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever participated in any of these studies or research in this area — in addition to your dissertation, getting your PhD? What about additional studies and research in this general area?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have, yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe that briefly?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Certainly. Well, just at ARCCA, I've worked with the United States military. We worked on the design of the MRAP vehicles — the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles — over in Iraq and Afghanistan.
MR. JACKSON: That's a Troop Carrier, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct, yes. And the issue there is they go over the IED — the Improvised Explosive Device — and it blows the vehicle up off the ground, so you're getting very large forces and accelerations through the vehicle, through the seat, into the soldiers' spines. So we're seeing very traumatic and severe spinal and head injuries. So at ARCCA, we work on what we call an energy-absorbing seat design — so when the vehicle gets blown off the ground, that seat is designed to absorb the force and the energy to protect the soldier's spine and head.
MR. JACKSON: Did you take part in the design of that seat?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did, yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Has that been employed by the Department of Defense?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, it has been.
MR. JACKSON: And are troops utilizing that new seat design — that safe seat design — in that Troop Carrier to this day?
DR. RENTSCHLER: As far as I know, from what they'll tell us, yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Are you also published in this field, Doctor?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I am, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you give us a couple of examples of current studies that you're involved in, or publications that you've done in the recent past, concerning bioengineering and its association with human factors?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Sure. Another project I'm working on — we work with the NHL, actually, at ARCCA. We have an ongoing relationship with the Department of Player Safety. For instance, we helped redesign part of the rink. In every arena, they had — at the end of the player area — there was basically a 90-degree section where the glass met, and so players were kind of getting checked down along the boards and then hitting up against the glass. And actually, somewhat ironically, it was Chara hitting Pacioretty into the glass at the Boston-Montreal game, and it caused a cervical fracture and concussion. The NHL came to us to see if we could do a redesign of the rink to make it a little safer.
DR. RENTSCHLER: So we took crash test dummies — anthropomorphic test devices, which you've probably seen on TV; the automotive manufacturers use them all the time — and threw them into different configurations of glass. And now in every arena in the NHL, it is basically a curved piece of spring-loaded Lexan or Plexiglas, where the players — now they hit into it, it absorbs the impact, and they glance off of the glass.
MR. JACKSON: Is that a design that you helped come up with?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It is, yes.
MR. JACKSON: So both from the United States military as well as professional sporting leagues, they've come to you to help save lives, lower the risk?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's right — mitigate and prevent injuries, yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: What about crash and sled testing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yeah, I've performed a number of crash and sled tests. When you look at any vehicle that's driven in the United States, it has to pass Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards — there are federal regulations that they have to pass. And part of that involves running the vehicle into a wall at 35 miles an hour, hitting it from behind, rollover-type impacts, and they have these crash test dummies in those vehicles. So we perform a lot of testing for different cases and situations where we put that dummy in the vehicle and we evaluate the safety system — whether it's the lap-and-shoulder belt, or the airbag, or the seatbelt pretensioner — to determine how to make the car safer.
DR. RENTSCHLER: And part of that is looking at the force that's exerted on that dummy, because there are tolerance values — we know how much force it takes to cause specific injuries. So we want to make sure that in certain instances, at certain speeds or impacts, if someone's in an accident, the force acting on, say, their head, or their neck, or their chest, is going to be below these established tolerance values.
MR. JACKSON: Speaking of how much force it takes to cause an injury to a human body — have you engaged in any testing, or published in the field of auto-pedestrian incidents?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, I've been involved in a number of studies where we're looking at auto-pedestrian type impacts. Again, a lot of times we'll utilize the crash test dummy — we'll set it up and actually have it struck by different vehicles or different objects to look at the response of the body. It's very important — if you're talking about an auto-pedestrian type impact, you have to know the configuration of the pedestrian, the vehicle, where they hit on the vehicle, whether it's a projection-type impact, a wrap, a fender vault — it really all depends on how the person's positioned and the amount of force and speed involved in that type of impact.
MR. JACKSON: And staying with that for a second — that basic subject matter — have you also engaged in studies related to slips and falls, where somebody might fall from a standing position and injure themselves — head, shoulders, whatever — and those kinds of injury impacts?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have, yes. And one of the issues we look at there is a lot of people fall — especially elderly people — so we want to look at what types of forces are being produced. You look at hip fractures if you slip and fall backwards, head fractures, so we're trying to determine how to prevent those falls from happening, and also create devices or products that can actually help prevent injuries if someone does take a fall.
MR. JACKSON: Doctor, have you been retained as an expert in the area of biomechanical engineering and human factors in the past?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have, yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you take a look at that document and tell me if you recognize it?
DR. RENTSCHLER: This is a list of my deposition and trial testimony. I provided that to the court this morning.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, I appreciate it — I had a chance to look at it. Okay. That's about — I don't want to go through everything — that's about a 14-page document, is that correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Let me just ask it this way: how many times do you think you've been qualified as an expert in the field, or testified as an expert in the field of biomechanics, biomechanical engineering, and human factors?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I've testified probably over 150 times in numerous state, federal, civil, and criminal courts throughout the country.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to move — I'm sorry, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: For the purposes of [unintelligible], I would ask if this document be marked.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Have you ever testified in criminal court as an expert in biomechanical engineering?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have, yes.
MR. JACKSON: How recently have you testified in criminal court?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, actually, I've just recently — I've testified twice. The end of May, I think May 31st, I testified in McKean County, Pennsylvania, for the prosecution. It was a case where the defendant was accused of beating his girlfriend to death and basically said that she fell down the steps. So my testimony involved determining how her injuries occurred, and that they were entirely inconsistent with what would have happened during a stair fall.
MR. JACKSON: What about another case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: And then about a week after that, around June 6th or 7th, I testified in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, again for the prosecution, for another homicide case, where the defendant was accused of essentially beating his wife to death, and then said that she actually fell backwards and struck her head, causing a skull fracture on the side of the sink. So my testimony again pertained to looking at the injury mechanisms and determining that the story of her falling back and striking her head on the sink was inconsistent with the injuries and the type of force that would have been exerted in that case.
MR. JACKSON: In both of those murder cases, you were hired or retained by the prosecution — not by the defense, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct, yes sir.
MR. JACKSON: Your opinions in furtherance of the prosecution's case-in-chief, not the defense case-in-chief?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct, yes.
MR. JACKSON: With regard to this case, you were asked to look at several items — we've already gone over those in other testimony, so I won't belabor that. You were asked to look at several items, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I was, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, based on that series of information — that universe of information that you were Provided, to see if you could come to an opinion and conclusion concerning the incident before the court now. Correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's right— to determine if I could determine what happened, how the injuries occurred, and the events leading up to and during that process.
MR. JACKSON: Without going into your conclusions and opinions, were you able to come to conclusions and opinions to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I was. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You were not hired by the defense— by me or anybody on the defense side in this case. Correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct. I was not.
MR. JACKSON: You were not consulted with or hired by the Commonwealth either.
DR. RENTSCHLER: I was not. That's correct. I was not.
MR. JACKSON: It was a completely independent endeavor, is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Correct. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Before this morning, have you and I ever met?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: And you and I have never talked about the substance of your opinion and conclusion. Correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: We have not. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You did reduce those opinions and conclusions in conjunction with your team to a report. Is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did, yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: And your understanding is that report was made available both to the defense and the Commonwealth. Is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, sir. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: I have nothing.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. I guess a few questions for you, sir. Good afternoon.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Good afternoon, sir.
MR. LALLY: Now, with relation to your work in this instance— in this case— were there any limitations as far as confidentiality or anything that were put on you or any of your team?
DR. RENTSCHLER: What do you mean by confidentiality?
MR. LALLY: As far as who, what, where, and how you could discuss what you did.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, yeah, I mean, certainly we just discussed who we were retained by in this case. I don't believe I discussed the case with anybody else except for my cohorts who were also involved in the case.
MR. LALLY: And so my question, sir, more is geared towards— at some point you were made aware that your report and your findings were made available to both the prosecution and the defense in this case. Correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I was made aware of that. Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And when you were made aware of that, was there any limitation given to you as far as who you could discuss your report, your findings, or anything with?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yeah, basically given the direction— or the request— that I don't actually discuss the substance of my opinions or my report with anybody aside from who we were originally retained to work for.
MR. LALLY: Now, may I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: I am going to show you the first couple pages of your report. Specifically, right down the bottom, there's a list of items one through 14. I ask you to— — those.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Now, is that the totality of information that you and your firm were provided with in reference to what you did in this case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I believe it was. Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: So nothing beyond that list of 14 things— did you have occasion to look at, review, or have any opportunity to see at any time?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, aside from— we did do testing in this case, so we did do other—
MR. LALLY: From your independent testing. I'm asking as far as material provided by whoever employed you— that is a sum and total of what you received. Correct?
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear]
MR. LALLY: , so what I'm asking is: did you personally review each of those 14 items that are listed in that report?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I believe that would be correct. Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And did you personally review each of those 14 items? Because— and I don't fault you or your company for this— but within the report there's a lot of
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did personally review every bit and every page of information that was provided in this case. Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And to be clear— just to close a loop on this— when it comes to those 14 items, were you allowed to ask for any additional items, or was it just you were limited to "this is what you have, go form an opinion"?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There may have been discussion about if there's other information available, but I believe ultimately that we rendered our opinions obviously just on this specific information that was provided to us.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as your opinion in your report— when was that issued?
DR. RENTSCHLER: February 12th of 2024.
MR. LALLY: So that date on the top of the report— February 12, 2024— that's when you sent the report to the people that contracted you to do the analysis in the first place?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Now, am I correct— and what I'm trying to ascertain here, Doctor, is just sort of the different roles that you and the other members of your team performed in reference to this— am I correct in that your primary role in this pertained to sort of biomechanical engineering analysis of injuries sustained by Mr. O'Keefe?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That would be correct. Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And not to put too fine a point on it, but Dr. Wolfe would have been more responsible for issues related to the vehicle itself, generally speaking?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, that would be correct. Obviously there's some interaction between damage to the vehicle and injuries to Mr. O'Keefe, but as far as your primary sort of any opinions contained within this report pertaining to injuries to Mr. O'Keefe— those would be your opinions. Correct? Yes. Any opinions or information with respect to the injuries would be my purview and my opinions in this matter. Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And you cannot comment on— so, any opinions related to damage to the motor vehicle, those would be opinions of Dr. Wolfe. Is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, to some extent. I mean, certainly I would have opinions as well based on the interaction— or alleged interaction— between the body and, for instance, the vehicle in this case, and what damage to both the body as well as the vehicle you would expect. So I think there's basically some overlap between those issues. I wouldn't say that it's a complete separation.
MR. LALLY: And so, again, Doctor— whatever your opinions or ultimate conclusions are, whether they be yours or Dr. Wolfe's or a combination of the two— it's all limited based on the information and the evidence that you received. Correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yeah, certainly it is based on the information that we reviewed and listed in our report. Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as sort of a mandate from the agency that hired you— were you asked to answer a specific question, or were you asked to just do an analysis based on what we sent you? Or how was that put to you as far as what you were doing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There was a specific request that we were asked to perform and to evaluate in this case.
MR. LALLY: And specifically what I'm asking, sir, is— there's an analysis in there of whether or not the injuries to the back of Mr. O'Keefe's head could have been caused from contact with the vehicle. Correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That is part of my analysis and opinions. Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And were you specifically asked to address or answer that question by the agency that hired you?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That was one of the questions I was specifically asked. Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: I have nothing further.
JUDGE CANNONE: Anything further, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, so, Doctor, I have a couple of questions for you, sir. So regarding this specific request— what were you tasked to do specifically?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So specifically overall, I was tasked from the biomechanical standpoint to determine— or see if it's possible to determine— how the injuries in this case occurred, and part of that was to determine whether the injuries, the head injury and the arm injuries, resulted from contact with the Lexus in this case.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, and regarding all of your prior testimony— a good deal of it seems to be in depositions. Any of those in Massachusetts?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There's a couple. I believe I've testified at trial in Massachusetts— Middlesex Superior Court.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you know where that might be? I do want to look at that.
DR. RENTSCHLER: A couple— I can find it for you.
JUDGE CANNONE: Maybe a couple months ago? Was it in a criminal case or a civil case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It was a civil case, I think. Let's see here— I think— yeah, so let's see. There was one— November 14, 15, 2023, Middlesex Superior Court— that was probably the most recent one.
JUDGE CANNONE: What number is that on there, if I want to go back and look at it?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That is number 310.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. Is there another Massachusetts case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Oh, I'm sure there are, because I know there's some from earlier in my career. Let me see— see if I can find them for you real quickly. Here— Connecticut... Louisiana... Oh, there's— uh, 68 of—
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to put you at Worcester. Is that a civil or criminal case, Doctor?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That is a civil case as well.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. What year was that?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Oh, that one was 2012.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Any others that you think of or you see?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There may have been a couple others. I don't recall off the top.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, I'll go through it more closely. I appreciate you—
DR. RENTSCHLER: Absolutely.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, any questions based on my questions?
MR. LALLY: No.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. No.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, you are all set, sir. Thank you very much.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, so, Mr. Lally, I will hear you on your motion. Now, we didn't get into the ultimate opinions and the basis for that opinion, but I'll hear you on your motion.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, what— um, essentially what the Commonwealth was seeking and had been seeking was just in reference to that— as far as who did what and who was responsible for what, and what were the items reviewed, and is that the totality of it. There's a date on the report— I don't know if that was a date as far as when it was filed, when the opinion was rendered, when that was provided— what was provided to them in the course of their analysis. So I think very simply what the Commonwealth had— been seeking for the most part was covered today.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I have some questions as to the scope of the testimony of the witnesses. So Mr. Jackson, you intend to have them testify consistently with the report — everything covered in the report and the conclusions, all four conclusions in the report?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally, what's your take on this?
MR. LALLY: I do have an issue with number four. I don't think they're qualified to testify — I don't think either of them is qualified to testify to that. That's more of an area of forensic pathology.
JUDGE CANNONE: What do you say to that, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: Number four is their opinion that there is currently insufficient evidence to determine the cause of Mr. O'Keefe's [unintelligible] brain injuries or the circumstances surrounding [unintelligible]. That is well within the scope of their expertise, obviously. I don't think I have to beat this dead horse — they are highly, highly qualified to all four opinions, and if the evidence, in their opinion, their expert opinion, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, which is what's evidenced to you by the report, is that there is insufficient evidence to determine the cause of Mr. O'Keefe's injuries, then that is an opinion that they are well within — it's well within the scope of what they can testify to. That's their opinion, that's their conclusion.
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Lally is going to have an expert, Dr. Faller, who is going to differ — or who has differed — in that opinion. So be it.
JUDGE CANNONE: And I would have kept it out — remember, I would have kept out any medical part had there been an objection, and when you objected I sustained the objection.
MR. JACKSON: I think we're talking about two different things, apples and oranges. I — I didn't — that's not Trooper Paul's opinion. His opinion is that his injury or his injuries — well, I think he said variously that it was blunt force, could have come from a curb, or it was blunt force because the road is blunt. That was his opinion, and he's sticking to it.
MR. JACKSON: This is contrary to that. Both of these individuals have come to the conclusion and opinion that the evidence is insufficient to support that determination, and it's well within their purview to testify to that.
MR. LALLY: If I may — I don't think that's her actual opinion. I initially didn't think of it in these terms as it's phrased on the cover page of the report. If you look at the actual opinion —
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm looking at the last page. Are they the same on the front and the back?
MR. LALLY: I think the front is a little more definitive, and concerning the back, I think it's more as to — it's consistent with a whole multitude of different things. So the fact that they — I don't really think that's an opinion at all, to be honest with you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, I'll take a look at this more closely. Give you a decision Thursday. All right, I did not expect it to go this quickly — we could have had the jury here, but I'm sure you all could use the afternoon to prepare. All right, Mr. Lally, let me know Thursday if you need — are you ready to go forward at least with your case on Thursday?
MR. LALLY: Oh yeah, sure.
JUDGE CANNONE: Let me know Thursday if you need additional time. If I let these witnesses — if I let Dr. Russell testify — how that impacts our schedule.
MR. LALLY: Absolutely.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, but I don't want that to be a concern of yours. How it impacts the schedule — that's my concern. I just need to know. All right, so anything else?
MR. LALLY: Not for the Commonwealth.
MR. JACKSON: I think that's it. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, we'll see you Thursday.