Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveProcedural — Directed Verdict Motion
34 linesJUDGE CANNONE: All right, Doctor. You are all set. Thank you very much. All right, Mr. Lally. Thank you. Commonwealth rests?
MR. LALLY: The Commonwealth rests.
MR. JACKSON: On behalf of the defense, we move the court—
JUDGE CANNONE: So I'm going to stop you right there. A short recess?
MR. JACKSON: If the court needs one?
MR. JACKSON: I don't need one. But I will see you at sidebar.
(Court in session.)
(Defendant is present with counsel.)
(Jury in.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So, Mr. Jackson, yesterday you told me you would like ten minutes for your argument. I'll hear you now.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, I'll be brief. The Court must consider, after viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the Commonwealth, whether a rational jury can find the elements of the charge of beyond a reasonable doubt. And here, the case that the Commonwealth has submitted to the jury after resting is insufficient to meet such a finding. There's no question but this -- what this particular prosecution in this particular case, no reasonable or rational jury could come to a unanimous verdict in favor of the Commonwealth. I want to, if I can, focus my argument on count one, two, and three and the specific element of each count.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: In each one of those counts, there must be evidence that the vehicle killed John O'Keefe. There has been no competent evidence presented in the Commonwealth's case that Karen Read's vehicle actually struck John O'Keefe. There's been conjecture. There's been speculation, but no actual competent evidence. The Commonwealth's entire case relies on a theory built on the shoulders of a trooper named Joe Paul who testified a couple of days ago. And his theory, according to the Commonwealth, is that John O'Keefe's arm was struck. He was spun around in sort of a pirouette. He was projected 30 feet to the left, hit his head on a curb or the road in the intervening -- intervening time before coming to a final rest spot about 30 feet away. Everything in the Commonwealth's case, everything relies on that theory, that theory of damage to the taillight at the scene.
If a rational jury could not unanimously determine that Trooper Joe Paul's theory is true beyond a reasonable doubt, then we believe the motion has to be granted. There is no competent medical evidence to support that theory. There's no competent physical evidence if the taillight could break and shatter in the way that they've suggested, and that the arm would not have any breaks or shatters or any damage, any additional damage. There's no evidence how getting hit in the arm could actually launch a body 30 feet as per the Commonwealth's theory. And there's no evidence how a body hit by a 7,000 pound SUV could sustain no injuries from the neck down, which we just heard this morning.
The evidence before the Court, the only evidence that is before the Court, is that the Commonwealth's own medical examiner does not believe this is a homicide, and she went on this morning to say that in her expert opinion, the injuries are not classic pedestrian injuries and they are every single one of them consistent with a physical altercation. Calling a witness to simply espouse an opinion like Trooper Paul did that belies science, common sense or even logic, that's not enough to get the case to the jury. The light most favorable to the to the Commonwealth does not mean that the Court must believe the Commonwealth's witnesses. What it means is if there is a rational controversy in the evidence, the Court must accept that evidence that favors the Commonwealth. But here there is no rational controversy. As put or expressed in Commonwealth vs. McCormack. It's a 2023 case found at 491 Mass.
848, pinpoint cite 860, "Where the Commonwealth's evidence is entirely circumstantial, it cannot meet its burden if the evidence -- if the evidence equally supports inconsistent propositions, as resolution of such a case necessarily requires conjecture or surmise." In our view, there is no question that there's no rational controversy related to the Commonwealth's theory. Trooper Paul's theory is by definition not rational. It's not reasonable, and it's basically -- based entirely on conjecture, and that's why, in our view, the Court is required to find Ms. Read not guilty of counts one, two, and three. It's because each of the counts, as I said at the beginning, necessarily include an element that John O'Keefe was struck by Karen Read's vehicle. Thus, if a rational jury cannot reasonably believe Trooper Paul's theory, it's the only evidence presented by the Commonwealth describing how Mr. O'Keefe possibly could have been struck, then Ms. Read is entitled to an acquittal.
Nothing else matters. Nothing else in the Court's evaluation, nothing else in the jury's evaluation, nothing. Everything turns on whether or not the car hit John O'Keefe, and the Commonwealth's only theory of how that happened is from Trooper Paul's description. If the Court were to deny this motion, then by doing so tacitly, the Court is expressly endorsing Trooper Paul's theory of how John O'Keefe was struck, and we don't believe that that's rational. We don't believe that any rational jury would ever unanimously agree with Trooper Paul, and thus we ask the Court to find Ms. Read not guilty at this time.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: I'll submit.
MR. YANNETTI: Your Honor, if I may just -- we have a written motion --
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. YANNETTI: -- for the Court to act on pursuant to that argument. May I hand it to the clerk?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And I have a copy.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I will hear you, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor, surprisingly, I would disagree with counsel's sort of --
JUDGE CANNONE: So let's leave the comments out.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, as far as the comments, all I was going to say is that I don't -- I would submit to the Court --
JUDGE CANNONE: It was the surprisingly that I took issue with.
MR. LALLY: And my apologies for that. What I would submit to the Court, Your Honor, is that this case does not rest and 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. O'Keefe is seen walking out of the Waterfall Bar at approximately 12:11 a.m. with that is in the vicinity, the direct vicinity, where the Canton police officers actually recover it early in the morning of January 29. You have the microscopic pieces of the defendant's taillight which was testified by Ms.
Hanley to be consistent with the pieces of taillight 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 lights. And this part is important in relation to Trooper Paul's testimony as far as the linear momentum, and 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. The testimony from Miss Vallier, Mx. Vallier, excuse me, with reference to all of those taillight pieces and how they were able to reconstruct front pieces that were found on the ground and then put back together matching to that but the taillight housing from the defendant's vehicle. The taillight 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 a hair that was on the rear right quarter panel of the defendant's vehicle, which also was -- matched the consistence with that of Mr. O'Keefe, his mitochondrial DNA. As well as the Court heard from Ms. Chart from Bode Technology. You have the plethora of testimony from the various civilian witnesses from that particular night. You have the evidence and 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 Ms. Read prior to that date. There are arguments that continue throughout the afternoon on the 28th and seemingly into the 29th.
You have the defendant's own statements that, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." That come from multiple sources, including Firefighter Nuttall, Firefighter Flummati, Firefighter McLaughlin, and Ms. McCabe. 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 Ms. Roberts and Ms. McCabe as far as the altercation or the verbal arguments stemming from Ms. McCabe's reference of (c) mother being a landmark, being someone that Mr. 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 Toyota TechStream. Trooper Guarino's GPS native location of Mr. O'Keefe's phone has that reversal, the same reversal, the same three point turn that Trooper Paul testified about, which occurred eight minutes prior to the vehicle traveling twenty-four point two miles per hour for approximately sixty-two 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 miles per
MR. LALLY: hour in reverse in a straight line. I would submit, Your Honor, is that there's 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 the Commonwealth has met 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.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. In the light most favorable to the Commonwealth under the prevailing Latimore standard here in Massachusetts, I am satisfied the Commonwealth has met its burden. The defendant's motion is denied. So, Mr. Yanetti, are you calling your first witness?
MR. YANNETTI: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So let's bring the jurors in, please.
(Jury in.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So jurors, if you remember, in my preliminary instructions to you a long time ago now, I stressed to you that the burden of proof rests with Commonwealth. The defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever. Doesn't ever have to testify or present any evidence. So the Commonwealth has completed its case. The Commonwealth has rested. And I want you to keep in mind that the defendant has no burden of proof. Mr. Yanetti, do you have a witness for us?
MR. YANNETTI: Thank you very much, Your Honor. The defense calls Brian Loughran.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.