Day 30 - June 24, 2024

Defense counsel presented retired forensic pathologist Frank Sheridan's qualifications and the reports, photographs, and other materials he reviewed. Sheridan testified that O'Keefe's arm abrasions were sustained before death and, in his opinion, did not resemble a direct vehicle impact because he would expect bruising. He said the marks were consistent with an animal attack, while qualifying that he was not completely certain. After foundation objections and a sidebar over a vehicle-impact hypothetical, the judge permitted a narrowed question and asked both sides to propose a limiting instruction. Sheridan also described a fatal impact injury to the back of O'Keefe's head, said it would have caused immediate unconsciousness, and testified that a fall onto grass was too soft to account for the injury. He further said some injuries were consistent with the possibility of a physical altercation.

Prosecutor Adam Lally questioned forensic pathologist Frank Sheridan about the materials underlying his opinions, eliciting that Sheridan had not performed the autopsy or seen Mr. O'Keefe's body and had relied on photographs, reports, and medical records. Sheridan agreed with the stated cause-of-death determination and the findings in Dr. Stonebridge's neuropathology report. He maintained that the right-arm injuries most likely reflected an animal attack, while acknowledging he could not identify an animal or breed, place the injuries inside or outside, or date them more precisely than minutes to hours before death. He also said that, if a vehicle strike projected Mr. O'Keefe onto asphalt, that could cause a skull fracture, but he did not think that was what occurred.

Defense counsel admitted and published Exhibit 657, a photograph of Mr. O'Keefe's knees. Dr. Sheridan identified the pictured injury as an abrasion and agreed it was the extent of the injury in that area before he was excused.

Daniel Michael Wolfe was sworn for redirect examination, but the supplied record ends before any substantive questioning or testimony.

Defense counsel elicited Daniel Wolfe's qualifications as ARCCA's accident-reconstruction director and his account of an independently requested review of the Lexus, scene materials, and autopsy-related records. Wolfe said ARCCA tested whether a thrown drinking glass could fracture a tail lamp and that a 37-mile-per-hour glass projectile produced damage consistent with the subject tail lamp. He also testified that a 15-mile-per-hour hybrid-head-form test produced substantially more damage than the subject vehicle and, after the court limited the scope of questioning, answered that the observed tail-light damage was not consistent with striking a human head or arm.

The prosecutor questioned accident-reconstruction expert Daniel Wolfe about the limited materials reviewed by ARCCA, including his lack of personal inspection of the Lexus and taillight fragments and his unfamiliarity with several forensic materials. Wolfe described testing conditions that were not expressly stated in the report, said visibility analysis was outside his scope, and explained why no event recovered from the vehicle's EDR would not be unusual in a pedestrian impact. The court overruled one relevance objection at sidebar, permitting a question about alleged statements by the defendant, and sustained objections to several other questions.

Wolfe said that references on cross-examination to hair, DNA, taillight housing, and glass material did not change his opinions or conclusions. The court then sustained an objection to a question seeking his conclusion on whether vehicle damage and human injuries were consistent with a vehicle interaction, and Wolfe was excused.

Biomechanics expert Andrew Rentschler described his qualifications, ARCCA's review of records and vehicle-related evidence, and the force-and-injury principles used in its testing. He said ARCCA prepared its report before defense counsel contacted him and that he had not been paid by the defense. On general and hypothetical questions, he described the injuries and taillight damage he would expect from vehicle contact with a head or arm, and the mechanics of body movement after an impact. The judge sustained several objections and ruled that he could address general causation, forces, and effects on a human body, but not whether a traumatic incident did or did not cause John O'Keefe's injuries.

The prosecutor questioned Dr. Andrew Rentschler about the materials underlying the ARCCA report, including items he had not reviewed and information learned after the report issued. Rentschler maintained that different scenarios could account for a backward fall and head injury. After he was excused, the defense rested; the court denied a renewed required-finding motion, obtained Karen Read's personal confirmation that she would not testify, and conducted a charge conference addressing lesser-included offenses, proposed instructions, and closing demonstratives.