Procedural - Directed Verdict Motion

MR. LALLY: The Commonwealth rests.

MR. LALLY: Surprisingly, I would disagree with counsel's, uh, sort of—

MR. LALLY: As far as the comments — all I was going to say is that— I would submit to the court: surprisingly, I took issue with that, and my apologies for that. What I would submit to the court, Your Honor, is that this case does not rest or fall with the testimony of Trooper Paul. Trooper Paul's testimony, while important, when taken in conjunction with the remainder of all of the other witnesses and all of the other testimony that the court has heard — I don't want to minimize it, but at the same time, that is not the only evidence that the vehicle struck Mr. O'Keefe or interacted with Mr. O'Keefe. So what the court has, as far as the physical evidence next to Mr. O'Keefe's body: the one sneaker in the location of the curb; the glass — the drinking glass that Mr.

MR. LALLY: O'Keefe is seen walking out of the Waterfall Bar at approximately 12:11 a.m. with — that is in the vicinity, direct vicinity, where the Canton police officer actually recovered it early in the morning of January 29th. You have the microscopic pieces of the defendant's tail light, which was testified by Miss Hanley to be consistent with pieces of the tail light from the defendant's vehicle, that are within or embedded within Mr. O'Keefe's clothing. You have the remainder of the pieces of tail light — and this part is important in relation to Trooper Paul's testimony, as far as the linear momentum — it's all in the same sort of direction and path of all of the roadway evidence that he observed, that's discovered in and around the area where Mr. O'Keefe's body was.

MR. LALLY: The testimony from Miss Vallier — excuse me — with reference to all of those tail light pieces and how they were able to reconstruct from the pieces that were found on the ground and then put back together, matching [unintelligible] — the tail light housing from the defendant's vehicle. The tail light housing from the defendant's vehicle, which has the victim's — Mr. O'Keefe's — DNA contained on it, as well as the mitochondrial DNA testing of the hair that was on the rear right quarter panel of the defendant's vehicle, which was also maternally consistent with that of Mr. O'Keefe's mitochondrial DNA, as well as [unintelligible] from Bode Technology. You have the plethora of testimony from the various civilian witnesses from that particular night.

MR. LALLY: You have the evidence of motive from the text communications, as well as the testimony of the children in this case as to the state of their relationship, from the defendant's own mouth in those text communications and in those voicemails as to the state of their relationship. You have the testimony in regard to Mr. O'Keefe and his recounting of the state of their relationship and his numerous attempts to break it off with Miss Read prior to that day. There are arguments that continue throughout the afternoon of the 28th and seemingly into the 29th. You have the defendant's own statements — "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him" — that come from multiple sources, including Firefighter Nuttall, Firefighter Flatley, Firefighter [unintelligible], and Mr. [unintelligible].

MR. LALLY: You have her statements to the paramedics in the back of the ambulance that the last time that she saw Mr. O'Keefe, they had gotten into an argument. You have the testimony in regard to Miss Roberts and Miss [unintelligible] as far as the altercation — or the verbal argument — stemming from Miss McCabe's reference of Bella's mother being a landmark, being someone that Mr.

MR. LALLY: O'Keefe used to date, just prior to that argument occurring in front of the house at 34 Fairview Road — with each and every piece of evidence that was presented throughout the course of the Commonwealth's case, including the forensic evidence — including, especially, one thing I would stress for the court, is taking not only Trooper Paul's testimony, but Trooper Paul's testimony in juxtaposition to Trooper Guarino's testimony, as far as the vehicle — or the native GPS locations of Mr. O'Keefe's phone — in reference to the timing, and in particular the information or data from the [unintelligible] native GPS location of Mr. O'Keefe's phone.

MR. LALLY: It has that reversal — the same reversal, the same three-point turn — that Trooper Paul testified about, which occurs 8 minutes prior to the vehicle traveling 24.2 mph for approximately 62 feet in a straight line in reverse. And as far as the testimony and the evidence that the court has before it, the court also has those backup testing videos that Trooper Paul conducted with the defendant's vehicle, so the court can see exactly what that vehicle looks like at approximately 25 mph in reverse in a straight line.

MR. LALLY: And what I would submit, Your Honor, is that there is more than sufficient evidence — from a medical perspective, from a forensic perspective, from a civilian witness perspective, and from the investigation of this case — as to all three indictments, that meets its burden, particularly under the standard before the court at this time. And for those reasons, I would request that the defendant's motion be denied.