Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveWolfe-Rentschler-Voir-Dires
509 linesJUDGE CANNONE: So I would like to hear argument on this witness before we hear the other witnesses, so. And, Mr. Yanetti, 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 it seemed sort of --
MR. JACKSON: It wasn't Mr. Yanetti. It was me.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: It was me.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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 here. All right. It's the Commonwealth's motion. What are you asking me to do? Again, I found a violation of Rule 14. There are two concerns here - the competency of the witness's testimony, how much she can testify to, whether she should testify at all. What is it you're asking me, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, 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 14A6. 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 in 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 ever 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, particularly through "The Boston Globe," for years at this point.
The limitations of the testimony, it's also concerning because the disclosure from counsel indicated, again, as the Court had noted, I didn't want to get into it too much as far as 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 is then opining on inferably at least, that that dog was the cause of these particular injuries. However, was not shown specifically anything to do with that bite history, as far as by way of reports or photographs. So that juxtaposed or 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 or opinion doesn't come until today. So for all those reasons, Your Honor, the Commonwealth is requesting that her testimony in its entirety be excluded from this trial.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson.
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. I mean just to put a fine point on it. It is a -- 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 and said, hey, look, I've got some experience with this.
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. I mean --
JUDGE CANNONE: What I was trying to get at 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. I think it was pretty clear, Mr. Jackson. Go ahead. Continue with your argument.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I did not misrepresent anything to the Court.
JUDGE CANNONE: I didn't say that.
MR. JACKSON: I take offense at the Court's tone that you're -- yes, you did say that. You just said that. You said, I just heard the testimony, and it's not what I said the other day. I know a person in 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 then reached 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. I wasn't misinforming the Court.
JUDGE CANNONE: So maybe it wasn't clear what I was looking for. I think it was clear. But 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 -- this voir dire process. She indicated I could potentially provide some information about this controversy concerning dog bites. I then sent her materials. I talked to her. I sent her materials. 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 then present on the defense side, on the defense case, and we turned the information over to Mr. Lally. I understand that it was well into the trial, but it's -- 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. Sordi-Bello and the Commonwealth is 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 those 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. 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 exam -- an examination in front of the jury, and I just don't think exclusion is appropriate. And I'll submit.
JUDGE CANNONE: So the second part of this argument, and I'll start with the Commonwealth first. So in your motion to exclude, you also raise Daubert type concerns. So, Mr. Lally, is there portions, if I permit her to testify, are there portions -- and focus 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 taillight material.
JUDGE CANNONE: I think you have an uphill battle on that part, Mr. Jackson. Commonwealth, what do you say if she -- if she testifies, what should she be able to testify to? And don't just say nothing. I'd want some input.
MR. LALLY: No, no. If the Court were to permitted to test -- the doctor to testify, Your Honor, what I would submit would be permissible testimony from a legal standpoint. I have some factual questions in 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 and 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. I don't think any proper foundation has been laid for there, whether it be through experiential knowledge in relation to that, or any sort of, you know, 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 it's permissible. But as far as the, you know, 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. And simply saying, well, there was no injuries to the legs, so it couldn't have been a motor vehicle collision is just -- just plain wrong and not backed up by science or anything else that this witness can testify to from the very limited experience she has in that realm. So if the witness were able or 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 opinions 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 -- I just said I'll submit. I'm not submitting. I have no issue with limiting her testimony to the animal attack issue, the dog attack issue. I didn't, as the Court noted, I didn't spend any time -- I think I may have asked one question, is it consistent with a motor vehicle incident. I have no problem if the Court wants to limit her testimony to the dog bite aspect and not the motor vehicle aspect. I wasn't planning on going into that aspect anyway, because 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 and --
JUDGE CANNONE: So why is it on the disclosure or what the Commonwealth turned over that she viewed all reports associated with Chloe's bite history and the UC Davis DNA testing? Why is that in there?
MR. JACKSON: Because we sent that in a drop box. We set everything in a drop box, and I assumed that she reviewed it. She must not have seen it or opened it or reviewed it. I didn't know. But that's what was sent to her. Everything that's in the disclosure is what was sent to her.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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.
MR. JACKSON: Understood.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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. How long might something like that take?
MR. LALLY: Not terribly long, Your Honor. 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.
JUDGE CANNONE: A week from today.
MR. LALLY: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't you start looking at least, all right, while I decide. I won't know until Thursday.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Anything else on this witness?
MR. JACKSON: Submitted, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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 voir dire on their qualifications only.
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: Is the Court suggesting that I go through the entire -- their entire testimony of exactly what they did - their testing, their opinions, conclusions, the basis of their opinions and conclusions?
JUDGE CANNONE: However you want to do it, Mr. Jackson. We're here today on the Commonwealth's motion.
MR. JACKSON: I realize that, but that's -- it's not the Commonwealth's motion to depose our experts. The Commonwealth's motion is they're not qualified as accident reconstructionists. 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 at the apple like it's a deposition.
JUDGE CANNONE: Whatever you want to do.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm not telling you what to do. Whatever you want to do.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe. DANIEL WOLFE, sworn
JUDGE CANNONE: Whenever you're ready, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: Sir, could you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?
DR. WOLFE: Daniel Wolfe, last name is spelled W-O-L-F-E.
MR. JACKSON: Sir, what do you do for a living?
DR. WOLFE: I am the director of accident reconstruction at a company known as ARCCA, A-R-C-C-A.
MR. JACKSON: And tell us a little bit about ARCCA, if you could explain for 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, crash worthiness, and accident reconstruction.
MR. JACKSON: Is accident -- you said that you were 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, Department of Defense, have you contracted with other entities or agencies, sporting -- 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. You know, I've been involved with pedestrian impacts, and that can be pedestrians hitting 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, it can really vary case to case depending on the facts and circumstances of that case.
MR. JACKSON: And 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 of 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, so I do a lot of nighttime visibility work where, for instance, let's say a pedestrian is coming down 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.
MR. JACKSON: And that might include everything from passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles, bicycle issues, motorcycle issues, things of that nature?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What education, training, and background qualifies you to perform the duties that you 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 course work 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 include -- 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 track -- 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 specialty or special -- specific area of training that you've engaged, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
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 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 just discussed?
DR. WOLFE: I've authored a number -- 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.
MR. JACKSON: In 2021, 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 when you walked into court, had you and I ever met face to face?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: In terms of your -- the commission that you were asked to undertake in this case, that have anything to do with the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: 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 person to my left, this -- the female to my left sitting here, have you ever seen her before?
DR. WOLFE: Nope.
MR. JACKSON: Do 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.
MR. JACKSON: In both federal and state court?
DR. WOLFE: Just state court.
MR. JACKSON: Multiple states?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Your analysis, conclusions, and opinions are 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: It's based on the evidence. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you're not paid by either side here in this courtroom?
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 ultimately would undertake that analysis?
DR. WOLFE: So it was myself, Dr. Andrew Rentschler, and Scott Klein.
MR. JACKSON: And Scott Klein 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?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: 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: If I can 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.
MR. JACKSON: Before I do that may I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I just want you to take a look at the first two pages of that document and 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 fourteen 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 SPDU 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?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Videos of the incident location?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Photographs of the 2021 Lexus LX570?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Photographs of recovered evidence?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Crash data retrieval report from the 21 -- 2021 Lexus 570?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Report of autopsy?
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 VIN LINK V-I-N, capital L-I-N-K report sheet for the 2021 Lexus LX570?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Expert auto stats 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 -- 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?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And as the -- 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. Klein work together to come to the opinions and conclusions that are cited in your multipage report?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. That's all I have, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: 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 or your agency was provided with that you reviewed, correct?
DR. WOLFE: That is correct.
MR. LALLY: Did you specifically review 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: Okay. So 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 it was your opinions or what you did in this case that was you were asked to answer specific questions, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Okay. So it wasn't like you were just tasked with, like, hey, 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 or your agency looked at, right?
DR. WOLFE: Those are the disciplines that the report covers, yes.
MR. LALLY: Okay. Well, you had 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: It wasn't part of my scope in this case.
MR. LALLY: Okay. 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. Klein do?
DR. WOLFE: So as a part of the engagement with the entity that ultimately retained us in this, 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 Klein 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, sort of 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: And 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 was it your testimony that anything that has to do with 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. or Mr. Rentschler's area; is that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: Dr. Renschler, 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 reviewed, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: I have nothing further.
JUDGE CANNONE: Anything further, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Submit, Your Honor. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So, Doctor, I just have one question for you. What specifically were you asked to do?
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, Your Honor, I didn't hear the Court's question.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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.
JUDGE CANNONE: You said selected quantity of information. Who selected that information?
DR. WOLFE: As far as I'm concerned, it was -- it would be the Department of Justice and the FBI.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. And they just gave you what they wanted to give you as far as you know?
DR. WOLFE: We had no say in what material was handed over to us.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Any questions based on my questions?
MR. JACKSON: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Just briefly.
MR. LALLY: (By Mr. Lally) And I apologize for this. I'm just unaware. Is it Mr. Wolfe or Dr. Wolfe?
DR. WOLFE: Dr. Wolfe is fine.
MR. LALLY: Dr. Wolfe, okay. So, Dr. Wolfe, when you say that you were asked specifically whether or not the evidence, the limited scope that you were provided was consistent with a pedestrian collision, were you asked sort of in general terms as far as any type of pedestrian collision or were you asked specifically as far as biomechanically could, say, the injury to the back of Mr. O'Keefe's heard had been caused by contact with the vehicle. 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 pedestrian impact?
MR. LALLY: Okay. And again, the whole panoply of injuries; 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 our findings.
MR. LALLY: And in the materials that you reviewed, did you see anything in there of any sort of statements, 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?
DR. WOLFE: In terms of direct contact?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
DR. WOLFE: No, I don't believe so.
MR. LALLY: Nothing further.
JUDGE CANNONE: Anything?
MR. JACKSON: Nothing.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Dr. Wolfe, you are all set, sir.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Thank you. ANDREW RENTSCHLER, sworn
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: 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 am a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstructionist.
MR. JACKSON: And 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 the 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 crash worthiness, safety of vehicles, and other types of events. So 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: If I may just have a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: 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. So 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, and you know 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. 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, the 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. You know, 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 this 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 I mean, ultimately, that's what biomechanical engineering is, how does an injury occur, why did it occur, and 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. I mean, 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 of it as well. It's 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's 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: Doctor, 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 bachelors 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 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. I mean, 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: Doctor, 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. With respect to biomechanical engineering, there's no actual professor -- 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 physics medicine -- or, sorry, physical medicine and rehabilitation and biomechanical engineering online?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I am. Yes, usually, if you publish articles in a journal, usually 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, NSAE, the IPTM, police technology, management training center, several different of entities I've taken biomechanical and accident reconstruction courses through.
MR. JACKSON: So the alphabet soup, if you will, of biomechanical engineering and human factors?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Right, yes.
MR. JACKSON: 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 human kinematics.
MR. JACKSON: Just out of curiosity, how would you define what is kinematics?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So kinematics is the motion of the human body, and looking at how the body moves. And it's irrelevant or irrespective of the forces that cause that motion. So we're really looking at the -- 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 your -- in one of your answers. What is -- what is injury mechanics and how does that relate to biomechanics?
DR. RENTSCHLER: So again, that's a subset of biomechanics 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 or 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. It's 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, and you need the application of that force in the correct manner to produce what we call an injury mechanism.
MR. JACKSON: And have you ever participated in any of these studies or research in this area, in addition to your dissertation and getting your PhD, what about additional studies and research in this general area?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe that for us, please, 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 were 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 their 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 is 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 the impact or the association that it has with human factors?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Sure. I mean. And another project I'm working on is we work with the NHL actually at ARCCA. We have an ongoing --
MR. JACKSON: In what way?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, 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 a basically a 90 degree stanchion where the glass met, and so players were kind of getting checked down in the boards and then hitting up against the glass. And actually, somewhat ironically, it was Chara hitting Pacioretty into the glass in the Boston/Montreal game and caused a cervical fracture and concussion. And the NHL came to us to see if we could have a redesign of the rink to make it a little safer. So we took crash test dummies, anthropomorphic test device, 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 a basically a curved piece of spring loaded Lexan or plexiglass 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 risk?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's right. Mitigate and prevent injuries, yes.
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, you know, any vehicle that's driven in the United States, it has to pass Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. There's federal regulations that they have to pass, and, you know, part of that involves running the vehicle into a wall at 35 miles an hour, hitting it from behind, roll over-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 if it's the airbag or the seat belt pretensioner to determine how to make the car safer. And part of that is looking at the force that's exerted on that dummy because there's tolerance values. We know how much force it takes to cause specific injuries. So we want to make sure, in certain instances, at certain speeds or impacts, that 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, we -- a lot of times we'll utilize the crash test dummy, where we'll set it up and we'll 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-ped 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 an 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, either to their head, shoulders, whatever, and those kinds of injury impacts?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have, yes. And I mean, one of the issues we look at there is a lot of people fall, you know, 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 help actually prevent injuries if someone does take a fall.
MR. JACKSON: Doctor, have you been detained 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.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I provided that to the Court this morning.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes, I appreciate it. I had a chance to look at it.
MR. JACKSON: 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: Your Honor, move to -- I'm sorry. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: For purposes of voir dire, Your Honor, I would ask that this document be marked.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
(Whereupon Voir Dire Exhibit No. 5, List, was marked as an exhibit.)
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever testified in criminal court as an expert in biochemical 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 31, 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 6, or 7, 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 and caused a skull fracture on the side of the sink. So my testimony, again, pertained to looking at the injury mechanisms and determining that his story of her falling back and striking her head on the sink, it's 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 in the case, not by the defense, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's correct,
MR. JACKSON: And you gave your opinions in furtherance of the prosecution's case in chief, not the defense case in chief, correct?
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, see if you could come to an opinion and conclusion concerning the incident before the Court now, correct?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That's right. Determine -- see 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.
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 -- that's correct. I was not.
MR. JACKSON: It was a completely independent agency; is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: That is correct, yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Before this morning, have you and I ever met?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: And we've never talked about -- 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.
MR. JACKSON: And your understanding is that report was made available both to the defense and the Commonwealth in this case; is that right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: I have nothing further, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Just 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 with 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, 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 limitations on 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 --
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Sir, I am going to show you the first couple pages of your report. Specifically, right down the bottom. There's a list items, one through fourteen, I'd ask you to review those and look up when you're finished.
DR. RENTSCHLER: (Witness complies.) 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 work.
MR. LALLY: Aside 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?
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 your report, there's a lot of "we". So what I'm asking is, did you personally review each of those 14 items that are listed in that report?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did personally review every, every bit and every page of information that was provided in this case, yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And to be clear, just to sort of close the 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, the report of 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. JACKSON: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
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 pertain to the sort of biomechanical engineering analysis of the 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?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Generally speaking, yes, that would be correct.
MR. LALLY: 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?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, any, 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 can comment on the -- so the any opinions related to damage to the motor vehicle, those would be opinion 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 and again, Doctor, what 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: It certainly 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 or -- 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 -- what you were doing?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There were -- 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: Submitted, Your Honor. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, so, Doctor, I have a couple of questions for you, sir. So regarding the 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 resulting 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? Do you want to look at that?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I can find it for you. Maybe a couple of months ago.
JUDGE CANNONE: Was it in a criminal case or a civil case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Oh, it was in a civil case. I think, let's see here. I think, yes, 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 so I can 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's see, see if I can find Before you real quickly here. Connecticut, Louisiana, and oh, there's 68. I'm going -- I'm going butcher it. Worcester, Worcester.
JUDGE CANNONE: Worcester.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Worcester.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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 saving me some time.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Absolutely.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Any questions based on my questions?
MR. LALLY: No, thank you.
MR. JACKSON: 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, 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 the date as far as when it was filed, when it was 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: Okay. 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?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: And the conclusions, all four conclusions in the report?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally, what's your -- what's your take on this?
MR. LALLY: I do have an issue with number four. I don't -- I don't think they're qualified to testify to -- 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 is there is currently insufficient evidence to determine the cause of Mr. O'Keefe's skull brain injuries or the circumstances surrounding the event. 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 render all four opinions. And if the evidence in their opinion, their expert opinion to a legal degree of science certainty, which is what's evidenced here by the Court, 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 their -- it's well within the scope of what they can testify to. That's their opinion. That's their conclusion. Mr. Lally is going to have an expert, Trooper Paul, 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. When you objected, I sustained the objection.
MR. JACKSON: No, no, no. I think we're talking about two different things - apples and oranges. I didn't -- that's not -- Trooper Paul's opinion is that his injury or his injuries were I think he said variously that it was blunt force -- it could have come from the curb or it was blunt force because the road was blunt. That was his opinion, and he was sticking to it. 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: Your Honor, if I may, I don't think that's their 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 and the findings --
JUDGE CANNONE: I was looking at the last page. Are they the same on the front and the back?
MR. LALLY: It's -- I think the front is a little more definitive and concerning. The back, I think 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 and give you a decision on 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, yes, Your Honor.
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. Okay. 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, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. We'll see You Thursday morning.
(Court in recess.)