Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveMarie Russell - Direct/Cross/Redirect
548 linesJUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Loughran, you are all set, sir. Thank you.
COURT CLERK: ...members of the court and jury in this case that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you?
DR. RUSSELL: I do.
COURT CLERK: Thank you. Take a seat.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Dr. Russell, could you please in a loud, clear voice state your name and spell your last name for the jury?
DR. RUSSELL: Dr. Marie Russell. R-U-S-S-E-L-L.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Russell, what do you do for a living?
DR. RUSSELL: I'm an emergency room forensic pathologist. Just recently retired.
MR. JACKSON: And prior to retirement, what was your position?
DR. RUSSELL: The immediate position just before retirement was chief medical executive for the State of California — the California state prison system.
MR. JACKSON: So, Dr. Russell, I'm going to ask you to keep your voice up, okay?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. There's a couple of air conditioners in here. Just keep your voices as loud as possible. What is, in fact, an Emergency Physician?
DR. RUSSELL: An Emergency Physician is a medical specialist who has completed a residency — well, internship, residency — a residency in the field of emergency medicine, which is a field which involves taking care of patients that are sick or injured and go to the emergency room.
MR. JACKSON: Can you tell us what your education, training, and background is that qualifies you as an Emergency Physician, starting with your education all the way back to college?
DR. RUSSELL: Okay. I have completed at least 16 years of formal education beyond high school, which includes college and then four years of medical school, then four years of Emergency Medicine residency and internship, and then four years of pathology residency, which includes two years of anatomic and two years of forensic pathology. And then — excuse me — I've taken a bunch of other courses and attended seminars.
MR. JACKSON: Let's start with your college. Where did you go to college? Where did you start?
DR. RUSSELL: MIT. I did my first year at MIT, where I took my premed courses.
MR. JACKSON: And then what happened after that? By the way, about what year was that?
DR. RUSSELL: That was 1972 to '73.
MR. JACKSON: Where did you go after — what happened?
DR. RUSSELL: I was interested in becoming a doctor, and so I took the premed courses. And then, subsequent to that first year, I learned that my mother had metastatic breast cancer, and so I decided to go home to New York to be with her. After that — well, she subsequently passed away — and I returned to Massachusetts and decided to take advantage of the time off from school to investigate my interest in law enforcement, and I subsequently became a police officer here in Massachusetts.
MR. JACKSON: So following MIT, did you go to a police academy?
DR. RUSSELL: I did.
MR. JACKSON: Which Police Academy did you go to?
DR. RUSSELL: I went to the Boston Police Academy.
MR. JACKSON: And did you end up becoming a sworn officer?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: For how long?
DR. RUSSELL: I did for seven years full-time.
MR. JACKSON: And what department did you work for?
DR. RUSSELL: I worked for the city of Malden Police Department.
MR. JACKSON: What years — if you can give me a range?
DR. RUSSELL: From 1977 to 1984.
MR. JACKSON: During the time that you were a Malden police officer, did you also go to school and continue your formal education?
DR. RUSSELL: I did.
MR. JACKSON: Describe that for me, please.
DR. RUSSELL: Well, I took specialized courses through the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council.
MR. JACKSON: Move to strike.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I'm going to strike that. Jurors, disregard that.
MR. JACKSON: Let me ask you this way. I don't want to get into the specifics, okay. Did — while you were a police officer, did you also take formal education to further your medical training or your college?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes, I did.
MR. JACKSON: That's what I'm interested in. Okay, tell us about that.
DR. RUSSELL: Oh, yeah. So I attended Northeastern University part-time and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology.
MR. JACKSON: After you got your degree in Psychology from Northeastern, did you want to continue your education in medicine?
DR. RUSSELL: I did. I attended medical school at the University of Massachusetts Medical School from 1983 to 1987, also known as UMass.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Did you ultimately end up with a medical — did you become a doctor? Did you engage in a residency?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What years were the residency — that first residency?
DR. RUSSELL: The first residency was from 1987 to 1991, and that was in Los Angeles at the Los Angeles County, University of Southern California Medical Center.
MR. JACKSON: Is that also known as LA USC?
DR. RUSSELL: It was, at the time.
MR. JACKSON: And that's associated with the University of Southern California Medical Center, is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: After your first residency — by the way, what was your first residency in? What was the subspecialty?
DR. RUSSELL: So it was in emergency medicine. And USC is a very large trauma center.
MR. JACKSON: How would you describe the size and volume of the USC Trauma Center?
DR. RUSSELL: Well, it's one of the busiest in the United States.
MR. JACKSON: After your first residency in emergency medicine, did you do a second residency?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What was the subspecialty in that second residency?
DR. RUSSELL: So I did two years in anatomic pathology and two years as a fellow — as a fellow in forensic pathology at the Los Angeles County coroner's office.
MR. JACKSON: So you did two full residencies after you became a doctor. Is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: What's the difference — I don't want to go into great detail — but what's the difference between an Emergency Physician and, for instance, the residency that you did in pathology, both anatomic pathology and forensic pathology? What are the differences?
DR. RUSSELL: Well, generally the Emergency Physician treats live patients, and the spectrum of injuries or illnesses can be wide. And the forensic pathologist treats — or deals with — deceased patients generally.
MR. JACKSON: Did you become a fellow at the LA coroner's office following your second residency?
DR. RUSSELL: No, that was part of the second residency.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Describe that fellowship.
DR. RUSSELL: So that was two years of full-time work at the LA coroner's office under the supervision of very experienced medical examiners, and what I did was I did autopsies — one or two autopsies every day — attended conferences, and read journal articles, et cetera. It was a very formalized education.
MR. JACKSON: Did you also become at some point a professor or an assistant professor at LA USC — the medical center side, the university side?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. So while I was doing the forensic pathology and anatomic pathology residencies, during the daytime I worked as a full-time ER doc supervisor in the capacity of an assistant professor in the evenings.
MR. JACKSON: Did you also become an adjunct professor at Cal State Los Angeles?
DR. RUSSELL: California State Los Angeles? Yes, that's a separate university. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you had separate responsibilities as a professor in that role?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Were you also teaching legal medicine and forensic medicine in that capacity?
DR. RUSSELL: That is correct. It was a master's-level program.
MR. JACKSON: How long were you an ER physician in total and an attending physician for Los Angeles County USC Medical Center?
DR. RUSSELL: 29 years in total. Four of those were in training and the rest were as supervisor.
MR. JACKSON: And of your 29 years, 25 of your 29 years you were supervising others, correct? Meaning other doctors?
DR. RUSSELL: Other doctors, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Teaching other doctors?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And teaching medical students?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes, and seeing their cases. Once they examined the patient, they would present their case — or tell me about the case — and then I would go in and see those patients.
MR. JACKSON: That was my next question, Doctor. In addition to teaching, were you also specifically assessing, diagnosing, treating patients of your own?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. Not all the time — some shifts I didn't have to do that — but much of the time, yes.
MR. JACKSON: For the bulk of the 29 years that you were an ER doc — an Emergency Physician — in other words, were you also attending to patients as well?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Once you left that fellowship with the LA coroner's office, did you remain active in any way or connected to the Los Angeles coroner's office?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. So I would attend their weekly conferences when I could, when I was available to do so. And I also consulted on some cases with them — so if they had something that was interesting and beyond their clinical expertise, they would sometimes consult me.
MR. JACKSON: During your tenure at LA USC, did you become the director of any of their subprograms?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe that for the jurors, please?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. I was director of the USC Center for Life Support Training, and that involved teaching other doctors life support courses such as Advanced Cardiac Life Support, or we teach the surgeons Advanced Trauma Life Support.
MR. JACKSON: Were you also a director for their quality improvement program in the early 2000s?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes, for the Emergency Medicine Department.
MR. JACKSON: What was the reason for the quality improvement program, if you will, for LA USC?
DR. RUSSELL: Well, for any program it's ideal to have a quality improvement component, because what you want to do is look at cases that are treated and see if there were any errors, and if so correct the errors, teach the doctors involved what went wrong, and try to make systemic improvements — or teaching improvements — to prevent those errors from occurring in the future.
MR. JACKSON: Were you teaching basically best practices for Emergency Room Physicians as well as trauma physicians and surgeons?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes, we tried.
MR. JACKSON: And you were the director of that program?
DR. RUSSELL: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you also become the director of LA USC Jail Medical Services?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is the connection or the tether between the jail system in Los Angeles and LA USC Medical Center?
DR. RUSSELL: Well, the LA County Jail Ward was established about 70 years ago, and it was a place that officers from various agencies such as ...as LA Sheriff's, LAPD, California Highway Patrol, or any of the municipalities around, could bring people that they arrested who were in need of medical care. So the jail system — a very large jail system, I'm guessing — in Los Angeles.
MR. JACKSON: Correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: There has to be medical attendance to that jail system. Correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you became the director of the jail medical services for the entirety of that system — for the hospital component of it?
DR. RUSSELL: Understood.
MR. JACKSON: In California, there is — you're obviously licensed in California. Correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: There is a State Medical Board in California. Correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And did you ever do any work with that State Medical Board?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. I worked with them for about seven years, part-time, as a regular employee, embedded in their enforcement unit. And what that involved was examining cases that were referred to the Medical Board because of substandard care or illegal activities of practitioners, providers. It was for physicians and physician assistants that we regulated.
MR. JACKSON: What was your title with the State Medical Board for those purposes?
DR. RUSSELL: The title was medical — excuse me — medical consultant. That was the official title.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And then, before your retirement — by the way, what years were you a medical consultant for the State Board in California?
DR. RUSSELL: I think from 2009 to 2016. I think those were the years. I'm not positive.
MR. JACKSON: Right. And that was a job you were doing while you were doing the LA County USC Medical Center job, too?
DR. RUSSELL: It was an extra job.
MR. JACKSON: So you didn't stop working as a physician — an ER, an Emergency Physician — at LA USC to take that position?
DR. RUSSELL: No.
MR. JACKSON: You just consulted with them?
DR. RUSSELL: I did it once a week — one day a week.
MR. JACKSON: Got it. And then with regard to one of your last positions that you held — did you become the chief medical executive for the California State Prison, Corcoran?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Tell me about that position and the years that you held it.
DR. RUSSELL: So that was from 2018 to 2023, and as the chief medical executive, I was the supervisor of all the doctors and nurse practitioners that provided care to the inmates. And obviously the California prison system is a very large prison system.
MR. JACKSON: Very. Doctor, are you board certified in emergency medicine?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are you a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. I'm actually fellow status, which is higher than member.
MR. JACKSON: Are you a member of the American Academy of Forensic Science?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. Again, I'm a fellow there, which is also an advancement above just being a member.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Have you ever published in the area — and now I'm going to get very specific — have you ever published peer-reviewed articles and done research in the area of animal bites and scratches?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you author or co-author a peer-reviewed article named "Managing Law Enforcement Dog Bites in the ER"?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: About what year was that?
DR. RUSSELL: It was in the 1990s — late 1990s. 1996 — does that sound right?
MR. JACKSON: Did you also author or co-author an article called "Law Enforcement K9 Dog Bites: Injuries, Complications, and Trends"?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So given those articles, did you study specifically dog bites, dog wounds on the human body?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. I have a very strong interest in wounds in general, and I have a strong interest in dog bites in particular.
MR. JACKSON: During the course of your career, your professional experience, how many patients would you say you've seen or treated with animal injuries, including bites and scratches?
DR. RUSSELL: That's very hard to estimate. But between my own practice and the residents that I supervised, it was — I'm sure — well over 500, and could possibly be double that. Could be up as many as a thousand.
MR. JACKSON: It could be, yes. Have you qualified as an expert in emergency medicine in the past?
PARENTHETICAL: [gap: [3:15:57]
JUDGE CANNONE: to 3:28:13 — approximately 12 minutes not captured; sidebar continues, possible recess]
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Have you qualified as an expert in the area of forensic pathology and wounds in the past?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that both in federal and state courts?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Doctor, were you asked to review certain materials related to this case, in furtherance of coming to some opinions and conclusions about injuries suffered by John O'Keefe, specifically to his right arm?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What did you review in coming to your opinions and conclusions?
DR. RUSSELL: Well, I reviewed hospital records and pictures taken of him in the hospital. I reviewed autopsy records, the autopsy report, and photographs taken during and before the autopsy. I reviewed — let's see — I reviewed the grand jury testimony of the autopsy pathologist. I reviewed the Affidavit of Dr. Sheridan. I reviewed the town of Canton dog bite reports regarding incidents.
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection, sustained]
MR. JACKSON: With the Court's permission, may we display Exhibit 19?
MR. JACKSON: May we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
COURT OFFICER: This court is back in session. Please be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: The Commonwealth's objection is overruled. You can continue, Doctor.
MR. JACKSON: You've listed several items that you reviewed in coming to your opinions and conclusions. Did you also review a toxicological report?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And a neuropathology report?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes, as well — from the Commonwealth.
MR. JACKSON: Based on your review of all of those materials — I don't want to know what your opinion or conclusion is yet — but were you able to come to an opinion or conclusion concerning the injuries, specifically to John O'Keefe's arm — or his right arm?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Were there any documents in furtherance of your review from UC Davis?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you review those as well?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Doctor, I want to show you a photograph and ask you very quickly — have you seen this before?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is this one of a number of photographs that you reviewed in furtherance of your evaluation of this case?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes, it is.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to just focus your attention on this for just a quick second and ask you — does this accurately reflect the wounds or injuries that you saw on John O'Keefe's right arm in coming to your opinions and conclusions?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. It reflects the injuries that I saw in photographs.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Now, based on your review of all of the data that you've talked about — all of the information that you were given and reviewed — what is your opinion or conclusion about how these injuries were sustained?
DR. RUSSELL: I believe that these injuries were sustained by an animal, possibly a large dog, because of the pattern of the injuries.
MR. JACKSON: Could you describe for the jurors, please, on what you base that opinion?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. Well, there's — may I use the pointer?
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
DR. RUSSELL: Okay. Thank you. There are a number of patterns here. On the upper part of the arm, there are parallel lines, and those were inflicted by either teeth or claw marks. So there are a number of patterns that could be teeth or claw marks. And so this is one set right here. This — the one further down, closer to the elbow, is another set of parallel marks, again probably most likely from teeth marks. And the reason I say that is, in addition to the parallel marks up here and down here, there are also little punctate, incomplete puncture marks here — little round marks right there — that were inflicted by the actual point of the tooth.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. That was my question — what relevance does that have to your determination that this was likely caused by an animal?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. And I can explain in a moment the various kinds of wounds that animals can inflict. But going on with the picture first — so then, down, right at the elbow, there's another series — a different series of marks — that again have linear abrasions up where the pointer is, and then down below, some punctate, superficial, round, small abrasions, again representing upper and lower teeth in my opinion. And then there are some irregular wounds down just below the elbow. And these are all, by the way, on the exterior surface — or what doctors would call the posterior surface of the arm — which is the part of the arm that would sustain defensive-type wounds. So if someone were to protect themselves—
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Doctor, if I can ask another question just to clear up what you said a little earlier — about the wounds close to the elbow — is it your opinion that both the top teeth and bottom teeth could have created some or all of the injuries on that elbow area?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So in other words, instead of the mouth going all the way around the arm, the top and bottom jaw could have situated itself on this portion that we're seeing — the posterior surface of the arm?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. And in this case, the animal did not get a good enough contact—
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Move to strike.
JUDGE CANNONE: So I'm going to strike that. Ask—
COURT OFFICER: This court is back in session. Please be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: So the Commonwealth's objection is overruled. You can continue, doctor.
MR. JACKSON: You've listed several items that you reviewed in coming to your opinions and conclusions. Did you also review a toxicological report?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And a neuropathology report?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes, as well. From the Commonwealth. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Based on your review of all of those materials — I don't want to know what your opinion or conclusion is yet — but were you able to come to an opinion or conclusion concerning the injuries specifically to John O'Keefe's arm — or his right arm?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Were there any documents in furtherance of your review from UC Davis?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you review those as well?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: With the Court's permission, may we display Exhibit 19?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Doctor, I want to show you a photograph and ask you very quickly — have you seen this before?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is this one of a number of photographs that you reviewed in furtherance of your evaluation of this case?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes, it is.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to just focus your attention on this for just a quick second, and ask you — does this accurately reflect the wounds or injuries that you saw on John O'Keefe's right arm in coming to your opinions and conclusions?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. It reflects the injuries that I saw in photographs.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Now based on your review of ...all of the data that you've talked about — all of the information that you were given and reviewed — what is your opinion or conclusion about how these injuries were sustained?
DR. RUSSELL: I believe that these injuries were sustained by an animal — possibly a large dog — because of the pattern of the injuries.
MR. JACKSON: Could you describe for the jurors, please, on what you base that opinion?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. Well, there's — may I use the —
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
DR. RUSSELL: Okay, thank you. There are a number of patterns here. On the upper part of the arm there are parallel lines, and those were inflicted by either teeth or claw marks. So there are a number of patterns that could be teeth or ...claw marks. And so this is one set right here. This — the one further down, closer to the elbow, is another set of parallel marks. Again, probably most likely from teeth marks. And the reason I say that is, in addition to the parallel marks up here, down here there are also little punctate, incomplete puncture marks here — little round marks right there — that were inflicted by the actual point of the tooth.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. That was my question — what relevance does that have to your determination that this was likely caused by an animal?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. And I can explain in a moment the various kinds of wounds that animals can ...inflict. But going on with the picture first — so then down right at the elbow, there's another — a different series of marks that again have linear abrasions up where the pointer is, and then down below, some punctate, superficial, round, small abrasions. Again representing upper and lower teeth, in my opinion. And then there are some irregular wounds down just below the elbow. And these are all, by the way, on the exterior surface — or what doctors would call the posterior surface of the arm — which is the part of the arm that would sustain defensive-type wounds. So if someone were to protect themselves —
PARENTHETICAL: [Sidebar.]
MR. JACKSON: Without getting into any specifics about police canines — okay. Does this appear — does a pattern of injuries that you see appear consistent with an animal or a large dog?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Doctor, if I can ask another question just to clear up what you said a little earlier — wounds close to the elbow. Is it your opinion that both the top teeth and bottom teeth could have created some or all of the injuries on that elbow area?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So in other words, instead of the mouth going all the way around the arm, the top and bottom jaw could have situated itself on this portion that we're seeing — the posterior of the arm?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And in this case the animal did not get a good enough contact —
PARENTHETICAL: [Sidebar.]
MR. LALLY: Objection. Move to strike.
MR. JACKSON: A different question. Have you seen contact wounds where the animal — a dog, for instance — gets a very solid purchase on the leg, arm, part of the body?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Is that this, or is this something else?
DR. RUSSELL: Something else.
MR. JACKSON: Describe that.
DR. RUSSELL: Well, when an animal inflicts injuries, the type of injury depends in part on the actual type of contact and how much force is applied by that animal, in addition to any relative movement between the animal and the victim in this case. So, for instance, in the law enforcement dog bites, many of —
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Does the number of injuries that you see here, relegated to just the right arm — is that also consistent with an animal or large dog?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes, it can be.
MR. JACKSON: Is the direction of the injuries, or the consistency of the direction of the injuries — the parallel injuries — is that also consistent with an animal or large dog attack?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Based on everything that we've discussed today, Doctor, is it your opinion, based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that these injuries were from an animal attack, possibly a large dog?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I have no further questions. That's all I have.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. May we approach?
MR. LALLY: Good afternoon, ma'am.
DR. RUSSELL: Good afternoon, sir.
MR. LALLY: Now, you testified that you're certified in emergency medicine. Is that correct?
DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.
MR. LALLY: And you're not, nor were you ever, certified in forensic medicine. Is that correct?
DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.
MR. LALLY: And when was the last time that you worked at a coroner's office?
DR. RUSSELL: 1995, in terms of doing autopsies.
MR. LALLY: Now, when was it that you first spoke to anyone from defense counsel in regard to your coming in here and testifying today?
DR. RUSSELL: May 17th.
JUDGE CANNONE: Doctor, I am going to ask you to keep your voice up.
DR. RUSSELL: Sorry. Thank you.
MR. LALLY: May 17th, 2024?
DR. RUSSELL: May 17th of this year. Is that right? 2024.
MR. LALLY: So about 6 weeks after this trial began.
DR. RUSSELL: I don't know when the trial began.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as who reached out to whom —
DR. RUSSELL: I reached out to a district attorney that I worked with at the LA coroner's office.
MR. LALLY: And then somehow that person put you in touch with Mr. Jackson. Is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And was that also on May 17th?
DR. RUSSELL: 17th and 18th.
MR. LALLY: Yes. And so — I'm sorry — 17th or the 18th? Which one was it that you spoke with Mr. Jackson?
DR. RUSSELL: I didn't speak to him.
MR. LALLY: You did not speak to him — not speaking, not verbal. There was some email communication or text communication. You communicated with him. Was that the 17th or the 18th?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. Both. I think both.
MR. LALLY: Okay. And when did you render this opinion as far as what you've testified to here today?
DR. RUSSELL: Shortly after he sent me the files.
MR. LALLY: Now, in regards to those files — you testified in this court a couple days ago. Correct?
DR. RUSSELL: I did.
MR. LALLY: And you were under oath at that point. Is that correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Excuse me?
MR. LALLY: You were under oath at that point. Is that correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Okay. And when you were asked specifically what materials you had reviewed, you included a number of items, but you did not include anything about a Dr. Sheridan affidavit, anything about a UC Davis report, or anything about any sort of bite history for a K9 that lived or resided at 34 Fairview Road. Correct?
DR. RUSSELL: That's correct. Because I hadn't reviewed them then.
MR. LALLY: And so since then — two days ago — now you've reviewed them. Correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. I became aware that those files existed.
MR. LALLY: Yes. You became aware of those files. Were they not sent to you previously?
DR. RUSSELL: No. I think there were technical difficulties regarding me and the computer and downloading from Dropbox. And so, yeah — so they were — I think they were sent to me, but I think I did not open them.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to these technical difficulties — did you ever express any of those technical difficulties? Or, "hey, I can't see the whole file," or "there are other things in here that are listed that I can't look at"?
DR. RUSSELL: No. I wasn't aware.
MR. LALLY: And so, with regard to your reaching out or contact in regard to this case — how did that come about?
DR. RUSSELL: I saw an article — I believe it was in the Boston Globe — regarding this case. And I didn't — initially I didn't think anything of it. Then I saw an article that indicated that there was some —
MR. LALLY: I'm not asking you anything about anything any article indicated. You saw an article in the Boston Globe about this case. Is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And how did you come upon — you have a subscription to the Boston Globe?
DR. RUSSELL: I did at the time, yes.
MR. LALLY: Did — at the time. What time was this?
DR. RUSSELL: In May.
MR. LALLY: May of 2024?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And how long had you had a subscription to the Boston Globe at the time that you saw this?
DR. RUSSELL: It was either a 6-month subscription or a year. I don't remember.
MR. LALLY: Was that the first time that you had seen anything about — that first time you paid attention to anything like that?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now again, you had testified here just a couple of days ago when I asked you questions about this. Is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Wasn't it in your testimony, just a couple of days ago, that the subscription was actually for a year or 18 months? You remember — not 6 months, a year?
JUDGE CANNONE: So, only one person can talk at a time.
MR. LALLY: So, was that your testimony, Doctor?
DR. RUSSELL: No, I don't believe so. I believe that I said it was a 6-month subscription or a 12-month subscription.
MR. LALLY: Then in any event, you saw something. Is that — that's the first time that you recall seeing anything in the media about this case, was in May of 2024?
DR. RUSSELL: It was the first time that I recall reading anything about it. Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, did you write a report in regard to your opinions that you've testified here today?
DR. RUSSELL: No.
PARENTHETICAL: [Sidebar.]
MR. LALLY: And I asked you that a couple days ago as well?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Okay. So in the last couple days, you've had time to review a UC Davis report, Dr. Sheridan's affidavit, and any sort of dog bite history, but you haven't had a chance to write a report?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained, as to form.
MR. LALLY: You haven't written a report?
DR. RUSSELL: Correct. That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Why not?
DR. RUSSELL: I haven't been asked to write a report, sir.
MR. LALLY: Now, did you ever look at anything related to Mr. O'Keefe's head injury?
DR. RUSSELL: I looked at —
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Extended sidebar / recess.
MR. LALLY: Yes. Now, Doctor, you testified that you had some familiarity with areas of forensic science — you're on some boards, things of that nature. Is that correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And as a result of that, or any other work experience, you're familiar with a NAS report from 2008?
DR. RUSSELL: Not with that limited information, no.
MR. LALLY: Are you aware of a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences in 2008, which specifically has a section dealing with —
JUDGE CANNONE: So, I'm going to see you both at sidebar again.
MR. LALLY: So, ma'am, you're not familiar with that report, specifically as it applies to forensic odontology?
DR. RUSSELL: Could you say that again?
MR. LALLY: What's — The report — the National Academy of Sciences 2008 report, in relation to the section referring to forensic odontology.
DR. RUSSELL: I'm not familiar with that specific report, no.
MR. LALLY: So then you're equally unfamiliar with the representation — from the NAS report — that that is not a reliable science as far as bite marks are concerned?
DR. RUSSELL: There are certain aspects of bite marks that have been deemed not reliable, and I believe that has to do with saying that this particular person or animal inflicted this particular bite. But that's very specific, and that's what I'm aware of — that recommendation.
MR. LALLY: You're not aware of any — ...findings in the NAS report that have led to questioning of the value and scientific objectivity of such evidence — specifically identifying a bite mark to an individual that might have inflicted the bite mark?
DR. RUSSELL: I think that's what that applies to.
MR. LALLY: Okay. I'm not — let me ask again: this is a report — are you familiar with it or are you not?
DR. RUSSELL: I'm familiar with a summary or an abstract of a report that indicates that forensic odontology is not — is deemed not reliable when it comes to that particular narrow aspect of forensic odontology.
MR. LALLY: And so you're not familiar with it also talking about sample data and collection — ...analyses of these, interpretation and reporting of results — you're not familiar with those areas of the NAS report as well?
DR. RUSSELL: What specifically? Do you have a specific question about that? Or —
MR. LALLY: My first question was whether or not you're familiar with the report. You indicated that you —
DR. RUSSELL: I did not read the report, Mr. Lally.
JUDGE CANNONE: Let the witness answer. One question at a time. One speaker at a time. Doctor, can you answer that question?
DR. RUSSELL: Sure. I did not read that report.
MR. LALLY: Okay. Now, you had written some articles that you were asked about in reference to dog bites or K9 dog bites in the emergency department. Is that correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. Co-authored — that you —
MR. LALLY: ...published or authored or co-authored sometime in the late 1990s, is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And in that instance you talk about law enforcement dogs and a bite-and-hold technique, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, part of the reason in writing that article had to do with sort of the applied forces and the unique spectrum of injuries from those kind of dog bites, is that correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that spectrum of injuries would include deep puncture wounds, is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: They can, yes.
MR. LALLY: Severe crush injuries, is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Large tissue avulsions and lacerations, is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Wounds necessitating surgical debridement, is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Bony injuries ranging— —from cortical violations to displaced fractures, is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Neurovascular damage, is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And other wounds at high risk for infection, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Correct. But we also put a disclaimer in that article.
MR. LALLY: I'm not asking you about any disclaimer. I'm asking about — that's the type of injuries that you were looking at, is that correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. But we saw a skewed population.
MR. LALLY: Did you skew the population in the study, is that correct?
DR. RUSSELL: What we saw was the worst of the worst.
MR. LALLY: No. Did you skew the population in the study?
DR. RUSSELL: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
MR. LALLY: Did we skew — did we skew —
DR. RUSSELL: No, we reported on all the ones that presented to the emergency room for care. However, a lot of dog bites don't present to the emergency room.
MR. LALLY: And so from the different cases that you report on within that article, are there any of those cases in which there are injuries to just one aspect of one part of the human body for the victims of dog attacks or dog bites?
DR. RUSSELL: In those cases, there may have been. That's a summary of more than 700 cases.
MR. LALLY: Is it normal in any kind of animal attack for injuries to occur on just one side of one arm of the person that's being attacked, clawed or bitten?
DR. RUSSELL: There are many people who are bitten or scratched—
MR. LALLY: I'm asking if it's normal—
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on. Mr. Jackson, Mr. Lally, ask a question, wait for the answer, and then start the next question. Do not interrupt the witness.
MR. LALLY: I apologize. I don't mean to interrupt, but I'm asking for an answer responsive to the question.
JUDGE CANNONE: So ask a question and ask it in a manner that you get a responsive answer.
MR. LALLY: Dr. Russell, is it your testimony that it's normal in an animal attack for injuries to occur on just one side of one arm and nothing else anywhere else on that person's body?
DR. RUSSELL: It can be, yes.
MR. LALLY: I'm not asking if it can. I'm asking, is that normal?
DR. RUSSELL: I can't say.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. You have to ask the question differently.
MR. LALLY: So from your observations, you looked at various photographs of Mr. O'Keefe, is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: I did.
MR. LALLY: Did you observe any injuries on any other part of his body that you would attribute to an animal attack, whether they were scratch marks or bite marks or anything else?
DR. RUSSELL: No.
MR. LALLY: Nothing on his left arm?
DR. RUSSELL: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Nothing that you identified as a dog bite or scratch, is that correct?
DR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Nothing on his torso, is that correct?
DR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Now you say an animal attack, possibly a large dog, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Can you say what type of animal left these marks that you attribute to an animal attack?
DR. RUSSELL: Not with 100% certainty, no.
MR. LALLY: Can you say where physically Mr. O'Keefe was located when those — the animal attack supposedly occurred?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
MR. LALLY: Can you say that?
DR. RUSSELL: No.
MR. LALLY: Okay. Can you say when Mr. O'Keefe reportedly sustained these injuries from an animal attack?
DR. RUSSELL: Well, to a certain degree, yes. Before — it was before death, but not long enough to have a big inflammatory reaction. So yes.
MR. LALLY: So about minutes to hours before death?
DR. RUSSELL: Minutes to hours before death.
MR. LALLY: But at some point before death, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Can you say anything about the breed of dog?
DR. RUSSELL: No.
MR. LALLY: Can you say anything about whether it occurred inside the house, outside of the house, anything like that?
DR. RUSSELL: No.
MR. LALLY: As far as some of the different things that you reviewed over the course of — excuse me, over the preparation of your testimony, both prior to Tuesday and between Tuesday and today, any of those things contain any forensic reports or forensic examinations or anything else related to this case?
DR. RUSSELL: Could you repeat that? I didn't—
MR. LALLY: What kind of — any — the materials that you reviewed, whether it be prior, sometime between May 17th and Tuesday, or anything that you reviewed between Tuesday and today — did any of those materials that you reviewed contain any sort of forensic reports or anything beyond the UC Davis?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. I saw a photograph.
MR. LALLY: Okay. So you saw photographs. And to that point, you never actually saw Mr. O'Keefe's specimen, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: You just saw photographs.
MR. LALLY: That's true. And with respect to the UC Davis report, as far as K9 DNA, are you aware that the results of that were that there was no K9 DNA on Mr. O'Keefe, on swabbing that were sent to UC Davis?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it.
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. But there was clothing in between.
MR. LALLY: Okay. But the swabbing came from the clothing with tears, and the clothing in the same area as the injuries, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Okay.
MR. LALLY: Do you know that or no?
DR. RUSSELL: I couldn't tell if they came from the wound or the clothing. I thought that they came from the clothing.
MR. LALLY: But you couldn't tell by reviewing the report whether or not swabbing came from clothing or from Mr. O'Keefe's body?
DR. RUSSELL: I know the clothing was sent to the laboratory.
MR. LALLY: You know the clothing was sent to what laboratory?
DR. RUSSELL: To the DNA laboratory.
MR. LALLY: To UC Davis?
DR. RUSSELL: Oh, I don't know that. No, I'm sorry.
MR. LALLY: You are aware that that came back negative for any K9 DNA, right?
DR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the injuries that you observed, your testimony is that both the top teeth of whatever animal this is and the bottom teeth of whatever animal this is both made contact with only the top of Mr. O'Keefe's arm, or the posterior of his arm?
DR. RUSSELL: Both sets of teeth made contact with certain of those wounds, yes, but not all of them.
MR. LALLY: But neither the top nor the bottom teeth made any contact that you observe — assuming your position as far as an animal attack — there's no evidence of any animal attack on the bottom of Mr. O'Keefe's right arm, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: I'm not sure what you mean by "bottom."
MR. LALLY: Interior, anterior?
DR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And nothing on the posterior or the anterior of his left arm?
DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.
MR. LALLY: Nothing on his legs?
DR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Nothing on his torso?
DR. RUSSELL: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Nothing on his head, is that correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the marks that you did observe that you do attribute to an animal attack, can you even say with certainty whether or not those marks you feel are bite marks versus scratch marks?
DR. RUSSELL: There may be a combination.
MR. LALLY: So is that a no?
DR. RUSSELL: Well, no. I think the ones that had the linear abrasions above the — the small round punctate abrasions, I believe that those are bite marks from upper and lower teeth.
MR. LALLY: Now, you indicated that part of what you had reviewed was a dog bite history for a dog from 34 Fairview Road named Chloe, is that right?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And there were a couple of different instances of that dog essentially getting in a fight with other dogs, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And at any point in time did you see anything in there as far as a dog going after a human in which there was no other dog present?
DR. RUSSELL: No.
MR. LALLY: And there were actually photographs contained within that material of dog bites from that dog, from Chloe, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Did any of those dog bites that you saw in those photographs look anything like what you observed in the photos that you saw of Mr. O'Keefe's arm?
DR. RUSSELL: No, but—
MR. JACKSON: Okay, objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: No, so the answer is no. You can get back up, Mr. Jackson, but the answer to that question is no. Next question.
MR. LALLY: So is it your testimony that from reviewing what you reviewed, what you observed on Mr. O'Keefe's arm is consistent with an animal attack to the exclusion of any other possibilities, to a degree of reasonable medical certainty?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. LALLY: So as far as any other sort of blunt impact injuries or other manifestations of how those scratches got there, you're saying nope, had to be an animal attack?
DR. RUSSELL: I've seen thousands of—
MR. LALLY: What I'm asking you—
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Lally, I'm going to let the witness answer. Go ahead.
DR. RUSSELL: I've seen thousands of people with injuries to their skin, and from blunt, from sharp, from all different mechanisms, those injuries did not look like blunt force injuries.
MR. LALLY: So your testimony is that the injuries to his arm don't look anything like blunt force injuries that you've seen before? You wouldn't characterize them as that?
DR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And that's based on some photographs and some other materials that you began reviewing sometime May 17th, 2024?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. I'm an ER doctor. I need to make a diagnosis quickly when I see something, and I'm trained to do that. That's my specialty.
MR. LALLY: Are you being asked as an ER doctor to come to a quick conclusion in this case?
DR. RUSSELL: No. But — it's how I'm trained.
MR. LALLY: Nothing further.
MR. JACKSON: Very briefly, Your Honor, please.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: Concerning the forensic odontology report — the NAS report — that Mr. Lally asked you about, what is your understanding about the report as it pertains to identifying individuals who left a bite mark? Explain that.
DR. RUSSELL: I believe the report says that that is not reliable, as it once was thought to be. Like a fingerprint identifying a human being, DNA identifying a person, or a bite mark identifying a person — NAS said no, the bite mark doesn't work that way.
MR. JACKSON: That's correct?
DR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Has nothing to do with the pattern of injuries that you've seen thousands of times from animals, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You were asked several questions about the injuries that you... ...saw and studied — attended to? A dog — highly trained dog, highly trained K9s, police dogs — correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Very different than just a domestic dog that somebody might have as a pet, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And the bite injuries are very, very different as well, aren't they?
DR. RUSSELL: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: You were asked whether or not you were aware, based on UC Davis's report, that there was no canine DNA found on the swabs that were sent to them, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are you also aware that there was pig DNA?
DR. RUSSELL: I'm aware of that.
MR. JACKSON: Did that have any impact — did you analyze that at all, one way or the other?
DR. RUSSELL: Not to any degree of scientific certainty, no.
MR. JACKSON: But you do know that dogs... ...chew on pig ears sometimes, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You've reviewed at least a report, if not a series of reports, that indicate that a particular dog has an attack history, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were asked specifically by Mr. Lally whether or not the wounds in a dog attack on another dog — where a human stuck a hand in the middle — look anything like these, correct? Remember that question?
PARENTHETICAL: [bench conference]
MR. JACKSON: No more questions.
DR. RUSSELL: I remember a question like that.
MR. JACKSON: And you said no, but — and then you were cut off. Remember that?
DR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You finish that answer for us.
DR. RUSSELL: Yes. So animals, and dogs in particular, can inflict a wide variety of injuries on the skin — from just individual... ...puncture wounds, to abrasions where there's a scratching of the skin, to where there's actually a pulling away — and pulling away of the skin from the underlying tissues, your ripping effect. And so there's a variety of wounds, or patterns, that one can see from an animal attack. It depends a lot on the thickness of the skin, the movement between the victim and the animal, and also the power of the animal and the training of the animal.
MR. JACKSON: So in other words, not all wounds inflicted by a particular animal are going to look exactly the same, correct?
DR. RUSSELL: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Very dynamic situation, isn't it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Doctor, having seen up to a thousand bite and claw marks on the human body, and based on your review of the entirety of the case file that you reviewed, including the nature and the pattern and consistency of the injuries that you saw on Mr. O'Keefe's right arm — what is your opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty about the nature of those injuries?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: What is your ultimate conclusion and opinion about the injuries that you saw and that you reviewed and that we saw today?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Can you tell the jurors — at the end of the day, what is your opinion and conclusion about those... ...injuries?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson, you had no more questions?
MR. JACKSON: No. Yeah, okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Doctor, you are all set. Thank you. All right, jurors, we will take our lunch break. Court — all rise for the jury. Brief exchange, inaudible [Lunch recess — approximately 58 minutes] Court resumes