Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveDaniel Wolfe - Redirect/Recross
621 linesCOURT CLERK: Step right here. Stand, raise your right hand, face the jury. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson, whenever you're ready.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Doctor, could you state your full name and spell your last name for the record, please?
DR. WOLFE: Daniel Michael Wolfe. Last name spelled W-O-L-F-E.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe, what do you do for a living?
DR. WOLFE: I am the director of accident reconstruction at a company known as ARCCA.
MR. JACKSON: And what is ARCCA, exactly?
DR. WOLFE: ARCCA is a forensic engineering consulting firm. We have a variety of disciplines that include human factors, biomechanics, crashworthiness, accident reconstruction, just to name a few.
MR. JACKSON: And based on your title, it sounds like you're the director of the entire accident reconstruction department for ARCCA, correct?
DR. WOLFE: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: What sort of contracts does ARCCA routinely engage in?
DR. WOLFE: So we do a lot of work in civil litigation, so we work with insurance carriers, law firms, but we also consult with -- and do projects with -- the federal government, as well as the National Hockey League on player safety. So we're involved in a number of research projects as well.
MR. JACKSON: Is there other clientele that seeks out ARCCA for accident reconstruction or biomechanics or human factors issues -- in terms of beyond the parties that you just listed? You mentioned the U.S. Department of Defense --
DR. WOLFE: Yes, the military, yes. The Army.
MR. JACKSON: Tell me a little bit about the work that you've done for the Department of Defense.
DR. WOLFE: Well, that was before my time, but I'm aware of projects that dealt with working on vehicles that were over in the Middle East, where they basically designed energy-absorbing seats, because there were injuries when the vehicles were going over IEDs.
MR. JACKSON: Is ARCCA known both nationally and internationally? Is it recognized as a leader in accident reconstruction issues?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: As the director of accident reconstruction at ARCCA, do you specialize in both accident reconstruction and the human factors that are associated with
DR. WOLFE: — such reconstruction where necessary, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you give me a synopsis of the professional discipline of what is accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: I think a simple definition in my mind would be the application of physics, engineering science, and mathematics to collision events. I always like to think of it as if you open up a puzzle box and you dump the pieces out and you've got a bunch of pieces and you're trying to piece together the evidence to see how everything fits to get a clear picture.
MR. JACKSON: And what is the application of human factors to that process?
DR. WOLFE: So to give an example of human factors in the field of accident reconstruction, I do a lot of nighttime visibility and conspicuity work. So to give you an example of that — let's say a driver is driving down the road at night, there's a pedestrian that's crossing the road. So we want to have an understanding based upon that pedestrian's clothing, the headlights of the vehicle, any potential artificial lighting in the area, when does a driver recognize that individual on the roadway. And then we can also look at literature to have an understanding of how do drivers respond based upon the hazard they're presented with. So there's different response times depending on the hazard.
DR. WOLFE: So it's going to be different for a pedestrian crossing the roadway or a driver responding to a vehicle suddenly stopping in front of them.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe, as an accident reconstructionist, do you investigate and reconstruct both passenger vehicle issues, commercial vehicle issues, motor vehicle pedestrian issues, all of the above?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, I see all types of accidents.
MR. JACKSON: And how long have you been doing this work with ARCCA?
DR. WOLFE: A little over seven years now.
MR. JACKSON: What education, training, background qualifies you to perform the duties that you just described for the jury?
DR. WOLFE: Back in 2012, I received a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from James Madison University, along with a minor in mathematics. Some of my courses while at JMU included courses in physics, statics, dynamics, kinematics, material science, along with your other 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: What additional training or experience do you have as it relates to accident reconstruction in addition to the formal education and the PhD?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. So in addition to my undergraduate degree and my PhD, I've continued to take courses through Northwestern University in crash reconstruction. Some of those courses have included human factors, lighting. I've taken courses on electronic vehicle data, photogrammetry, three-dimensional laser scanning. So I've continued to take courses subsequent to graduating.
MR. JACKSON: Do you also hold any accreditations in terms of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, I'm accredited by an organization known as ACTAR, which is the Accreditation Commission for Traffic Accident Reconstruction.
MR. JACKSON: Are you trained in photogrammetry?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Is that to determine vehicle crash incidents or the circumstances surrounding them, based on map scenes, evidence from photographs, things of that nature?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. So photogrammetry is the science of extracting information, if you will, out of photographs — so things dimensionally about an object, spatially, without ever actually physically seeing the object or inspecting it.
MR. JACKSON: So you don't have to be at the scene to effectively and scientifically reconstruct it to your satisfaction?
DR. WOLFE: No, not at all. And quite frankly, to be honest with you, in my world in civil litigation, oftentimes by the time a case comes across my desk, the accident happened five years ago — some I've even had ten or fifteen years ago. So getting access to the vehicle at that point, it's going to be a long shot.
MR. JACKSON: Doctor, are you a member of any professional societies?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Describe those please.
DR. WOLFE: So I'm a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE. I'm also a member of the National Association of Professional Accident Reconstructionists, the Optical Society of America, and also the Illuminating Engineering Society.
MR. JACKSON: How many cases would you say in your experience, in your career, have you reconstructed or attempted to reconstruct — you or your team members?
DR. WOLFE: I don't actively track that. If I had to estimate at this point in my career, it would probably be well over a thousand.
MR. JACKSON: And how many of those thousand — I know you don't have a specific number — but how many of those thousand would you say involved pedestrians as well?
DR. WOLFE: Several hundred. As I mentioned earlier, a great deal — excuse me — a great deal of my work is in the field of lighting and visibility, so there's a direct correlation between time of day and pedestrian incidents. We see a rise in the evening and night hours just due to drivers having difficulty — difficult ability to try to perceive and recognize individuals. So I certainly see a lot of pedestrian collisions in my case work.
MR. JACKSON: Done testing or research as it relates to the kinematics and the interaction between pedestrians and vehicles?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. So we do a number of tests at ARCCA to look at the interaction between pedestrians and vehicles. One of the ones I know I did most recently — we were evaluating a vehicle essentially rolling over a pedestrian, so we wanted to understand the vehicle dynamics as well as the interaction between the pedestrian and the road surface. So we conducted testing at ARCCA to evaluate that.
MR. JACKSON: Does ARCCA have any other disciplines other than just accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. So as I mentioned earlier, we have crashworthiness — so again, that's where you're going to be looking at the safety of a vehicle, how does it perform in a crash. We have human factors, failure analysis, premise liability, and biomechanics.
MR. JACKSON: As an accident reconstructionist, doctor, do you — or have you — studied or tested the forces that are at play between objects, objects interacting, a human being interacting with a vehicle, for instance?
DR. WOLFE: Yeah, absolutely. Part of what you do, yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Describe that.
DR. WOLFE: So we use hybrid instrumented dummies at ARCCA for our testing. So if we want to have an understanding of an occupant in a vehicle, the forces that they might experience, or for any matter — if it's an instance where you have something that ends up falling on someone's head and you want an understanding of the forces involved in that — we perform testing with hybrid dummies.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever authored any peer-reviewed papers in the field of physics?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Describe those for me.
PARENTHETICAL: [Gap — bench conference, approximately [1:45:10]
JUDGE CANNONE: –1:46:33]
DR. WOLFE: So I have a number of papers in the field of lighting and optics. I have a recent publication that deals with Toyota and Lexus vehicle control history records as well.
MR. JACKSON: Is that called Toyota vehicle control history sudden braking history recording characteristics?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Was that specific to dealing with vehicles and their interaction with other vehicles and/or pedestrians?
DR. WOLFE: It involved looking at the various triggers that that system is capable of recording, and specifically it was looking at what triggers a sudden braking event. So we were able to determine that those triggers — the sudden braking event is triggered when a driver — I should say the vehicle reaches —
MR. JACKSON: May we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure. : You are unmuted.
MR. JACKSON: — you've been qualified in other courts to testify as an expert in the area of accident reconstruction, is that right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You were not hired by the defense in this case, correct?
DR. WOLFE: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: At the time you did your expert review, Dr. Wolfe, and your consultation, you and I had never met.
DR. WOLFE: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You did not — you did not know who I was.
DR. WOLFE: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: You had never met Miss Little.
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Yannetti?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Matter of fact, you had never heard of this case.
DR. WOLFE: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You were hired by another agency not connected in any way to the defense, is that right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And not connected in any way to the Commonwealth, is that right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So your analysis, and your conclusions, and your opinions are completely independent of the defense and the Commonwealth in this case, is that right?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Mr. Jackson, you can ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: When you did your analysis and conclusions — well, let me ask it this way. You finalized your report, you and your team, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That report — that report is contained in a multi-page document that was submitted following your analysis and your opinions and conclusions, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: The defense didn't have anything to do with that, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You had never met us, didn't know who we were when you did this, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You never met Mr. Lally, didn't know who he was when you did this, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So your analysis, opinions, testing, and conclusions were requested by a completely separate agency?
DR. WOLFE: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Goes without saying, but I'm going to ask it anyway. You haven't been paid by the defense?
DR. WOLFE: You have not paid us anything.
MR. JACKSON: No. And you don't work for us?
DR. WOLFE: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, I've never asked you specific questions about your testing before today.
DR. WOLFE: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Your work product, the report that you provided, was provided both to the defense as well as the Commonwealth, is that right?
DR. WOLFE: That's my understanding, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you were equally available to both sides in terms of them reaching out, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And I called you ultimately after receiving your report, asked if you'd join us and testify, correct?
DR. WOLFE: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Were you and your team asked to undertake a review for purposes of accident reconstruction of the case that's now pending before the court?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Was your team asked to do this by the agency that ultimately retained you, not us?
DR. WOLFE: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Who was assigned to the team who would ultimately undertake this job of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: It was myself, Dr. Andrew Rentschler, and Scott Kline.
MR. JACKSON: What was Dr. Rentschler's role in this case, as it's distinguished from your role in the case?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. So Dr. Rentschler is a biomechanical engineer, and ultimately he assessed whether or not there was a mechanism for the injuries of Mr. John O'Keefe.
MR. JACKSON: And what was your focus — if he's talking about the injuries to Mr. O'Keefe, what was your focus in your reconstruction and your analysis?
DR. WOLFE: I would simply say it was looking more at the damage to the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So in terms of your team and the responsibilities of each of the team members, you were more focused on the damage to the SUV, Dr. Rentschler was more focused on the injuries suffered by Mr. O'Keefe, correct?
DR. WOLFE: I think that's a fair characterization, although with the caveat that we work together as a team, so we weren't isolated kind of in those areas, not speaking to each other — we certainly worked together on the analysis.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Were you provided or did you review certain materials in furtherance of your consultation in this matter?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What were you provided?
DR. WOLFE: We were provided photographs of the incident location, we were provided photographs of the Lexus, there were a couple of incident reports that we received. I could look at my report for the full list, but those are the—
MR. JACKSON: You can go ahead and do that, doctor. You have the report with you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir. I have a copy of it.
MR. JACKSON: Is this faster? Sure. May — sure. Thank you. How many categories of materials were you provided?
DR. WOLFE: It would be approximately 10.
MR. JACKSON: Could you list those off for the jurors, please?
DR. WOLFE: It would be the Norfolk SPD homicide death report, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of State Police crime scene report, OCME dispatch removal report, photographs of the incident location, videos of the incident location, photographs of the 2021 Lexus LX570, photographs of recovered evidence, crash data retrieval report from the 2021 Lexus LX570, report of autopsy, and autopsy photographs.
MR. JACKSON: Based on these data that you were provided, were you able to — satisfactorily, to your mind — satisfactorily engage in the consultation that you were hired to do?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And come up with some opinions and conclusions based on scientific certainty?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you review scene photographs of the alleged incident?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: What information were you able to glean or gather from your review of the photographs from the scene specifically?
DR. WOLFE: So from those photographs I was able to identify there were fragments of transparent — red, clear plastic. There also appeared to be pieces of chrome and black plastic. I also observed what appeared to be glass fragments along with a black drinking straw.
MR. JACKSON: Did you also review some videos?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. [unintelligible — possibly describing outdoor daytime scene video; leaf blower audible] Correct. It appeared to be daytime.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What did you note about the photography at the scene of the items that were being photographed?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think one thing that comes to mind is it was a little bit difficult to follow the evidence, so to speak. So typically when I go out and do an inspection, especially of a fresh incident — let's say I've got a debris field or I've got tire marks — what I like to do is kind of step into the scene, if you will, where you take global perspective shots and then you step into a specific piece of evidence so that you can at a later point in time identify where that evidence is. I noted that in a lot of these photographs I didn't see a whole lot of that stepping in — it was essentially just zoomed right into where that evidence is, but not really having a great understanding of where was it relative to all the other evidence, or when it got there, correct.
MR. JACKSON: Based on your review of all the materials that you described for the court, did you get an understanding of what the Commonwealth's theory of the case is — specifically, Mr. O'Keefe was struck by the Lexus SUV?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you come to understand that the allegations before the court were that Mr. O'Keefe was struck by the vehicle?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Did you perform an accident reconstruction specifically focused on determining whether or not damage to the Lexus was consistent with hitting Mr. O'Keefe?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, I think that's a fair characterization.
MR. JACKSON: And reversing that — was your accident reconstruction also focused on whether or not the injuries to Mr. O'Keefe were the result of being hit by a vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. During your analysis, did you note the damage to the vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Describe that, please.
DR. WOLFE: So the primary damage was to the right tail light. It appeared to be fractured, with the majority of the lens cover — so that clear and red plastic covering — missing from it. In addition to that, to the — if you're looking at the back of the vehicle, to the left of that, in the area above the — there's also another tail lamp assembly on the lift gate. So above that assembly there was a small dent along with some paint chips on the bumper, more so on the wraparound section as it kind of curves around to the right side of the vehicle. There appeared to be some superficial scratches as well in that area.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any other damage or deformation that you were able to glean from your review — the photogrammetry, damage to the Lexus, the bumpers, the panels, the quarter panel, the sheet metal, anything like that?
DR. WOLFE: No. The rest was remarkably intact.
MR. JACKSON: Is it common in vehicle-pedestrian collisions that there's some sort of bumper displacement and/or sheet metal deformation concomitant to that?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. Assuming a pedestrian is positioned in a normal upright position, you certainly would expect to see damage to the bumper. In a lot of cases, what happens is the bumper is just clipped on, so again the force of that impact will oftentimes cause the bumper to kind of become unmounted or unclipped. You certainly could see deformation to body paneling such as the lift gate or the quarter panel as well.
MR. JACKSON: Is that especially true at higher speeds, meaning above 15 mph or so?
DR. WOLFE: Oh, absolutely, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any apparent damage to the Lexus that appeared consistent with any kind of pedestrian interaction that you saw?
DR. WOLFE: No. It was, again, really confined to just the tail light — a very isolated portion of the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: During your review and your investigation, did you note information concerning items that were supposedly found on the bumper?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What was that?
DR. WOLFE: I believe it was noted there were two apparent glass fragments located on the top bumper cover.
MR. JACKSON: What's the significance of the presence of those items — or the lack of materiality of those items — your view?
DR. WOLFE: Well, again, I think this going back to the scene evidence — again, we knew that there were glass fragments, what appeared to be from a drinking glass, at the scene of the alleged incident.
MR. JACKSON: Is there any glass consistent with the glass that was supposedly found on the bumper — in the tail light housing, the tail light mechanism, anything from the car, the Lexus — that would account for that glass?
DR. WOLFE: Okay, I think I understand. So the tail light itself is not comprised of any glass — it is all plastic — so that glass on the top bumper cover could not have come from the right tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Now, based on your review of the information that was provided to you, did you undertake any testing concerning the damage to the vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Can you describe what that testing was?
DR. WOLFE: So we performed — again, this is with Dr. Rentschler and I working together on this — we performed projectile testing to the tail lamp with a drinking glass as well as a hybrid headform.
MR. JACKSON: What was — let's take those one at a time. How would you describe the drinking glass test?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. So again, from our review of the evidence, we knew that we had an isolated portion of damage to the Lexus confined to the tail light. So we know that we're dealing with potentially a small object that could have created that. Looking at, again, the evidence in terms of the scene photographs, we know that we have a damaged drinking glass at the scene in the vicinity of the fragments of the tail light. So the theory that Dr. Rentschler and I put forward is potentially an individual threw this drinking glass at the back of the Lexus, causing the tail light to fracture.
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to interrupt you right there. You and Dr. Rentschler formed that theory and wanted to test that theory, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were not told that theory by the defense, because you'd never met us, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You were not told that theory by the Commonwealth — you'd never met them, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Your theory was the product of simply having some facts extant in the data — had a broken drinking glass, a broken tail light — let's put them together and figure out if the drinking glass could be responsible for the tail light, vice versa, absolutely?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that was your determination — well, we were given instructions to reconstruct this, let's look at every single angle, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. And I will note — as part of the engagement with the entity that retained us, we were asked not to do any outside research or investigation of the case. It was to be based solely on the evidence that we were provided.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. As a matter of fact, and importantly, while you were doing your— ...testing, had you ever even heard of the Karen Read case?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: So getting back to that testing — and I interrupted your flow — you were looking at whether or not the glass could have produced the damage to the rear tail light that you saw, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And what did you do in furtherance of making a determination about whether or not that was possible?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. So myself and one of our lab technicians at ARCCA, we designed and developed a pressurized air cannon. So it was capable of firing a projectile — such as a drinking glass — at the tail light. So it essentially — you think of it kind of as a giant cannon, but it had a barrel, and then there was a valve that would open rapidly, and directly behind that was a pressurized vessel. And depending on the pressure — the PSI of that vessel — would determine essentially the speed at which that glass would be ejected into the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: So you literally built a cannon?
DR. WOLFE: Yeah. It's pretty awesome. Pretty cool job.
MR. JACKSON: Tell me what the results of your testing were with this pneumatic cannon that would fire the drinking glass.
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. So we performed two different tests in terms of speeds. The target speeds were 30 and 40 miles per hour.
MR. JACKSON: Why was that?
DR. WOLFE: Well, so with consultation with Dr. Rentschler, he indicated that that is a reasonable speed at which an adult male — or an individual, for that matter — could throw a drinking glass at the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: Had anybody — up to that point — told you any specific — let me see if I can rephrase that. Had anybody indicated that there was any evidence whatsoever that John O'Keefe had thrown a drinking glass at the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Was this another example of you and Dr. Rentschler and your team just exploring sort of every possibility and working a little bit in the blind?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: What was the reason that you decided — you and your team decided — that you wanted to approximate how a grown man could throw a glass at a tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think we wanted to have an understanding: when a projectile such as a drinking glass interacted with the tail light, would we get damage on the test tail light that was consistent with that of the subject tail light?
MR. JACKSON: Understood. So based on your theory, were you able to approximate the damage on the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Describe that for us.
DR. WOLFE: So as I mentioned, we ran two tests. The target speeds were at 30 and 40 miles per hour. And there was a little bit of variability in terms of what our target was and what we actually achieved. So the achieved speeds were at 31 mph and 37 mph. So there's just — depending on how the glass leaves the barrel and some of the rotation — that can affect the speed, or ultimately the end result speed. So what I will say, though, is that with the 37 mph projectile into the tail light, we noted and observed that there was damage that was consistent with that of the subject tail lamp, and that the test tail lamp had the majority of the outer lens fractured and missing, broken into pieces, as well as some underlying damage to some of the internal components as well.
MR. JACKSON: Are you saying — well, let me ask a different question. You were able to replicate the damage to the tail light using a pneumatic cannon firing a glass at 37 mph directly at the tail light, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. And that would also shatter the glass too, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you do any testing about whether or not that damage to the tail light could be produced by a person simply holding a glass and being hit by the car driving in reverse?
DR. WOLFE: We didn't do any testing of that, and primarily because — again, if we're looking at the arm and its total length — we again only have a narrow damage pattern on the tail light. If you think about where — kind of where it meets the lift gate, into where it starts to wrap around to the side of the vehicle — that's only about 6 and a half inches in width.
MR. JACKSON: All right. When you fired the glass into the tail light, the tail light was static — in other words, it was not going to move, it was immovable at that point — correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. So the glass is hurling through the air at 37 miles per hour and hits the static object that's resisting, and that smash is what produced — ultimately — the tail light damage that you were able to replicate. Is that right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If a person were holding in his hand the glass, and the tail light were to hit that hand, the hand would not remain static, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask him differently, Mr. Jackson.
PARENTHETICAL: [Sidebar]
JUDGE CANNONE: You are unmuted.
MR. JACKSON: If the tail light were to make contact with a person holding a glass, would that replicate what you did in terms of your firing a glass into the tail light? In other words, are they apples and apples?
DR. WOLFE: No, I don't think it would be the same.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Why is that?
DR. WOLFE: Well, as I mentioned earlier, again the damage to the back of the Lexus is confined to just that roughly — again, when we're talking about the tail light itself — that 6 and a half inch section in width. So it's inconsistent with the total length of the arm, and certainly from discussion with Dr. Rentschler, inconsistent with the injuries to the arm.
MR. JACKSON: So given everything that your investigation revealed concerning this testing, are you saying that the tail light was damaged by John O'Keefe holding a drinking glass that was hit by an SUV?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: [Garbled — in all the information that you provided, you were not provided anything suggesting that John O'Keefe threw a glass at the tail light.] Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: What information, if any, were you provided that suggested that John threw a glass at the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: No information.
MR. JACKSON: What information, if any, were you provided that suggested that John O'Keefe may have had a pneumatic cannon with him that night?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of any information regarding that.
MR. JACKSON: All right. You also did some testing concerning a drop test. Is that right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Tell us about that drop test.
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. So again, through discussion with Dr. Rentschler, it was my understanding that Mr. O'Keefe had a skull fracture on the back of his head. So we wanted to do an evaluation of the interaction between the back of a head — in this case we used the instrumented hybrid headform — to perform a drop test, to evaluate the forces of an interaction between a tail light from the Lexus and the human head.
MR. JACKSON: What height did you choose to perform this drop test?
DR. WOLFE: Seven and a half feet.
MR. JACKSON: Why did you choose that height?
DR. WOLFE: Well, if you calculate through physics and the acceleration due to gravity, that would equate to an impact speed of 15 miles per hour at that height.
MR. JACKSON: And what was the significance of 15 mph?
DR. WOLFE: Well, that was essentially kind of a starting point for us, if you will. So I will tell you that in reverse, 15 mph is fast. I don't know if you've ever looked at your speedometer when you're pulling into your driveway, reversing into a parking stall — most people probably don't go more than 5 miles an hour or so. So 15 miles an hour in reverse is fast, especially when we're talking about — it's my understanding it was nighttime, there were winter conditions, potentially wet or icy roads. So again, that speed is going to be what I would say on the high end for going in reverse. So also, in addition, with respect to the nature of that speed, it's my understanding through discussion with Dr.
DR. WOLFE: Rentschler that at 15 miles an hour you start to see significant injuries to the human body when it makes contact with a vehicle. And I think one last point is that we needed to pick a speed where — again, this is kind of just us brainstorming — where we would have damage to the tail light. Right, it would fracture it but it wouldn't completely obliterate it. So we knew if we chose, for instance, 40 mph, we know we're going to completely — essentially — explode the tail light. But if we do, you know, 1 mph, we may not do anything to it. So we kind of had to pick a middle ground to again cause damage to the tail light.
MR. JACKSON: What was your conclusion following that testing? What was your conclusion with regard to whether or not the damage to the tail light was consistent or inconsistent with making contact with John O'Keefe's head at or above 15 miles per hour?
DR. WOLFE: So strictly speaking, from a damage perspective, the 15 mph interaction between the hybrid headform and the test tail lamp produced significantly more damage than that of the subject vehicle. So that indicates that again the damage on the subject tail light was less than that of the test tail light.
MR. JACKSON: So if I were to ask you whether or not there would be more or less damage to the tail light if you increased the speed to 24 mph, what is your conclusion?
DR. WOLFE: Well, you're talking about significantly more kinetic energy. So if you just think about it from a kinetic energy standpoint — kinetic energy is equal to one-half times the mass times the velocity squared. So if you're squaring that velocity and you're going from 15 up to 24 mph, you're going to get a significant amount of more energy associated with that. Probably pull up my calculator, but you're probably looking at 2 and a half times more energy than the 15 mph test, which means 2 and a half times more damage to the tail
MR. JACKSON: ...light, certainly, which you did not see in your review of the materials? Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So what is your opinion or conclusion as to whether or not the damage to the tail light was caused by striking John's head?
DR. WOLFE: From a damage standpoint, it was inconsistent.
MR. JACKSON: I want to shift gears back to the injuries that you saw concerning Mr. O'Keefe's arm — his right arm. During the course of your investigation, did you look at photographs and investigate the injuries to his right arm?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: What's the width of the tail light — specifically from where it meets the lift gate on the — to the left side? I'm sorry, to the side of the vehicle... ...the right side of the vehicle, to the right?
DR. WOLFE: So, yeah, as I mentioned earlier, that is about 6 and a half inches. It again starts to wrap around to the right side, so really, even though the tail light continues, it's not projecting out on the back end more — it's wrapping around. So in terms of the width that is facing the rear, if you will, it's about 6 and a half inches.
MR. JACKSON: And you noted that there was a dent and some paint chips that you identified above the lift gate? Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: How far away from the right side of the vehicle were those scratches and that dent?
DR. WOLFE: Approximately 20 inches.
MR. JACKSON: What was the significance of that... ...distance?
DR. WOLFE: Well, again, to go back to your question about — I think if somebody was holding a drinking glass and their arm was extended to cause that damage, or if it's theorized that those dents and chips were from that — the thing that sticks out to me is that you have essentially the Lexus tail light.
MR. JACKSON: So, another question: what is the significance of whether or not there was damage between the dent and the tail light — in other words, that 20-inch area — was it dented, was it deformed in any way?
DR. WOLFE: So in terms of, again, looking at the back of the vehicle and going to where that right tail lamp just meets the lift gate — as I mentioned, there's another lamp assembly on the lift gate itself, there's also a chrome trim piece above that, and then certainly the body paneling to the lift gate itself. And I think what stood out to me is that between that dent and the fractured tail light, there was no observable damage to that area, which I would have expected had an arm been positioned there.
MR. JACKSON: Can you calculate — or could you calculate, or did you calculate — the amount of force that would be required to strike a person just only on the outstretched portion of his arm, in order to project him a number of feet — for instance, 30 feet — in one direction or another?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, I just want to make sure. Jackson, take the distance out of it, break it down.
MR. JACKSON: I'll ask you the same question but without the 30 feet. Were you able to calculate — or could you calculate — the force that would be required to strike a person on his outstretched arm hard enough to spin him around and project him a number of feet?
DR. WOLFE: If you're talking about only an interaction between the arm and the back of the vehicle, no, there wouldn't be any projection. Again, if you think about this, the arm weighs about — with Mr. O'Keefe it would be about 11 pounds — so you still have another 200-plus... ...pounds being held down by gravity, and the force is only acting on the arm. So essentially the arm would be accelerated, but the whole body — because the center of mass is not being struck — would not be projected.
MR. JACKSON: Is the absence of the damage that you described — the absence of damage between the dent and the rest of the vehicle with the exception of the tail light — is that consistent or inconsistent with striking an outstretched arm of a human being?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
DR. WOLFE: That would be inconsistent, in my opinion.
MR. LALLY: They have — just a moment, your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what is your opinion, doctor, as to the amount of damage that... ...you would expect to see at 15 miles per hour or above on the tail light, if in fact that vehicle were moving in reverse and were to strike something on a human body — for instance, an elbow or an arm?
PARENTHETICAL: [Sidebar]
JUDGE CANNONE: You are muted... you are unmuted.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
MR. JACKSON: Probably not. Sorry, I'm trying — physics, that's right. Um, from your testing, what would you expect to see in terms of the damage to the right rear tail light, if in fact that tail light were to make contact with a part of a human body — for instance, an elbow or an arm — at 15 mph or above? What would the level of damage be as compared to... ...the damage that you actually saw?
DR. WOLFE: Well, if we compare it to looking at the drop test that we did with the hybrid head form — which weighs about 10 pounds — so if we're talking about now a human arm that's comparable in that same weight, we certainly would expect to see a comparable level of force and damage. So as I mentioned, if the arm is outstretched across the right tail lamp and into the lift gate section, I would certainly expect to see deformation to that body paneling, even potentially the tail light on the lift gate itself and that chrome piece as well.
MR. JACKSON: Based on the entirety of your investigation — your entire team's investigation, all the testing that you did, all the biomechanical testing and the engineering and the physics testing that you did — in your expert opinion, was that tail light damaged by striking John O'Keefe in the head?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: In your opinion, was the tail light damaged by either striking Mr. O'Keefe in the head or the arm?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Approach.
MR. JACKSON: May I, your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Last question, Doctor. In your expert opinion, based on all your testing, is the damage to the tail light that you saw consistent with striking a human head?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: In your expert opinion, is the damage to the tail light consistent with striking a human arm?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. That's all I have.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, jurors, we will take our morning recess.
COURT OFFICER: All rise, please. I'll get it. Please be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: Court is in session. Right, Mr. Lally, whenever you're ready.
MR. LALLY: Good morning, sir.
DR. WOLFE: Good morning.
MR. LALLY: Now, you — in conjunction with, um... I'm sorry, Dr. Rentschler, is that correct? Dr. Rentschler?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: So you, in conjunction with Dr. —
JUDGE CANNONE: Keep your voice up, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Yes. You, in conjunction with Dr. Rentschler and Dr. Kline, wrote a report in regard to your analysis here? Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And doctor, that report was issued on February 12, 2024. Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And in the first paragraph of that report, the last two sentences — you, or whoever the author of that particular portion — indicate: "This analysis is based on information currently available to ARCCA and is only to be issued in its entirety. However, ARCCA reserves the right to supplement or... ...revise this report if additional information becomes available." Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And that's pretty standard as far as your industry is concerned — you can only work with the information that you're provided. Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly.
MR. LALLY: Now in this instance, you were provided 10 things, and then there were four additional things that either you or the other doctors had reviewed as far as literature or things of that nature. Is that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And the 10 things that you were provided were reports — an initial crime scene report, medical examiner, dispatch, removal report. Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: — incident location, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And how many sets of photographs of the incident location were you provided? In terms of — not the number of photographs — were there different sets of photographs?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And how many sets?
DR. WOLFE: I don't recall, offhand. I know that there was a series that were taken during the daytime, as well as ones taken what appeared to be in the early morning hours.
MR. LALLY: And you were also provided video from the early morning hours, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, I think it was daytime, but yes.
MR. LALLY: Photographs of the vehicle, photographs of recovered evidence, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: CDR report from the 2021 Lexus LX570, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Autopsy report, autopsy photographs, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And then some other things — those would be the 10 things that you were provided with, and then there were four other things that you reviewed, or part of your team reviewed, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now in regard to — there's a section in your report called "Review of Materials," and it talks about photographs and glass fragments and plastic fragments and things of that nature, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: You also talk about a black drinking straw that was recovered on scene, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: However, there's no mention in the report about Mr. O'Keefe's shoe or Mr. O'Keefe's hat — are you aware of those items as well?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And are you aware that Mr. O'Keefe's shoe was actually found dug out from the snow, sort of flush with the curbing, in front of the area where his body was found?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now over the course of your work as a crash reconstructionist — and again I don't mean this in any way, shape, or form, but I'm just curious — typically you're reconstructing, or you're looking at someone else's reconstruction, in relation to something that occurred in the past, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Not always, no.
MR. LALLY: Well, my question is, sir, how many times have you actually been on a live scene where the vehicles are still in place at final rest, whether a body is in place at final rest — have you ever been to a scene where those sort of conditions existed?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. We have a rapid response team that essentially — we've been on site on the day of, or the week of, the incident, yes.
MR. LALLY: Now how often is that?
DR. WOLFE: Not nearly as often. As I said earlier, we primarily do litigation work, so again by the time we're retained, obviously the scene has been — is no longer present, scene's been cleared, items have been removed as far as evidence or other things.
MR. LALLY: That's mostly what you deal with, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Sure.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the hat that we were talking about before — are you aware that that was recovered as well, same day as the drinking straw, on February 3rd, in the area where the body of Mr. O'Keefe was discovered, in the area of the front yard?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now you have some familiarity, through working as a crash reconstructionist, with pedestrian collisions, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Is it common or uncommon for — in the course of a pedestrian collision — for a shoe or glasses or a hat or something to fall off of that pedestrian in the collision sequence, near where the area of impact occurs?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think that depends on the interaction between the two. If we're talking — if it's more of a sideswipe type interaction, where we're just talking about an arm, for instance, contacting the vehicle — no, I would not expect the shoe to come off. If it's something where the entire body is interacting with the vehicle, then yes, there's a greater likelihood that something like a shoe will come off, yes.
MR. LALLY: So that is consistent, in general terms, with a pedestrian collision, of a shoe coming off, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Again, based on the interaction between the two, I wouldn't say it's a blanket statement that in all pedestrian interactions you will have a shoe come off.
MR. LALLY: And that's not the question I was asking. So what I'm asking is: is it generally consistent with pedestrian collisions that a shoe may come off during the collision sequence near the area of impact?
DR. WOLFE: Shoes can come off in a pedestrian impact, yes.
MR. LALLY: Okay. Now again, you were testifying earlier about the damage to the Lexus being isolated in the area of the tail, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And that was based on the information that you were provided, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now with respect to any of the materials that you were provided — was there anything in the materials that you were provided that indicated that just the arm, or an outstretched arm of Mr. O'Keefe, interacted with the vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. LALLY: And based on your review of any of the materials that you were provided, was there any information stating that Mr. O'Keefe had been struck in the back of the head by the tail light assembly of the Lexus?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. LALLY: And based on any of the materials — let me ask you: based on any of the materials that you were provided, were you aware that Mr. O'Keefe is on video exiting from a bar minutes before the crash occurs, at approximately 12:11 a.m., holding a cocktail glass in his right hand?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of that video.
MR. LALLY: Now other than the materials that we just went over, as far as the 10 things that you were provided — you weren't provided anything else, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: That would be correct.
MR. LALLY: And so, sort of the questions that you endeavored to answer — those were questions that you didn't know from any of the materials that you were provided, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: If I understand your question correctly — that there was nothing in the material that indicated the questions we were to answer — if that's what your question was.
MR. LALLY: That is my question. So there was nothing in there, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: May I have a moment?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: You talked a bit about — you have some extensive background in human factors, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And as far as visibility — in particular, have you ever conducted a visibility analysis?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely, hundreds of times.
MR. LALLY: And you talked a little bit about conspicuity, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And part of conspicuity — at least one of the factors would be a reasonable expectation — in particular, when you're talking about a pedestrian, conspicuity factors would include sort of a reasonable expectation that a pedestrian would be in the path of a vehicle, is that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: I don't understand your question.
MR. LALLY: Sure. When you're talking about conspicuity or visibility analysis, in particular you're talking about something called PRT, or perception response time, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Well, that occurs after recognition, so first a driver has to recognize that there's a pedestrian there before they can actually respond to it. So once they've recognized the pedestrian, then you start the perception response time, where again the driver has identified what the hazard is, they're making a decision about what to do, they might be moving their foot from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal — so again, kind of, that's the action, or the time frame in which the driver is undergoing action to potentially mitigate the collision.
MR. LALLY: And perception response time — that's a pretty commonly used industry sort of standard as far as crash reconstruction goes, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I would say that it's used in the field of accident reconstruction, but as I mentioned earlier in my testimony, there isn't a blanket number in terms of perception response time. As I mentioned, it's based upon the hazard that the driver is presented with. Again, if you've got a pedestrian crossing the roadway, that's going to be one particular perception response time based upon studies and naturalistic data, versus a driver suddenly stopping in front of you — there, it's not the same perception response time in every scenario.
MR. LALLY: Oh, understood. And there are different variables that may affect that — as far as someone's age, as far as the lighting that's available, other things, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Sure.
MR. LALLY: And one of those things might be the reasonable expectation of a pedestrian being present in the roadway as you're driving along, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Expectancy can play a role, yes.
MR. LALLY: Expectancy — what we're talking about — sort of the disparity or the difference between driving along a country road where there's no — for miles and miles — versus an urban area where there's crosswalks every 15 feet, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Sure.
MR. LALLY: Now in that expectancy, how high would that be if we're talking about a pedestrian that actually exited from the vehicle that then strikes—
DR. WOLFE: I don't understand your question.
MR. LALLY: Let me ask you this: if the operator of the vehicle has a passenger who then exits the vehicle and goes towards the back, would there be a high reasonable expectation that that pedestrian would be located in that area?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know if I would classify it as high.
MR. LALLY: What would you classify it as?
DR. WOLFE: I honestly don't know that I have a classification to it.
MR. LALLY: Now you never looked at the defendant's vehicle in this case, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Are you aware that the defendant's vehicle is still in police custody and available for inspection?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of that.
MR. LALLY: Did you ever ask to look at the defendant's vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. LALLY: Now a typical pedestrian strike, for the most part, involves a pedestrian in front of a vehicle as it's coming down a street, is that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: That can be one type of interaction, yes.
MR. LALLY: Is that more prominently seen as far as your field than a rear collision?
DR. WOLFE: I would say that's fair.
MR. LALLY: And there are various types of interactions that a pedestrian can have with the vehicle in order to cause and sort of sustain injuries, is that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: What I would say is that there's certainly, in terms of how the pedestrian interacts with the vehicle, in terms of whether they're being wrapped onto the vehicle or projected forward — certainly there's different types of interactions, yes.
MR. LALLY: So there's like a wrap and forward projection type of collision sequence, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Those are two common, yes.
MR. LALLY: There's also something called a fender vault, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Okay. And sort of how or where that pedestrian is positioned with relation to the vehicle is somehow or somewhat determinative of the injuries sustained, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: It can be, yes.
MR. LALLY: Obviously you're going to see different injuries if someone fender vaults and goes over the top of the vehicle versus someone who is projected forward from the collision sequence with the front of the vehicle.
DR. WOLFE: Just to clarify again — in this matter I was not assessing injuries. That was Dr. Rentschler. I don't have an opinion.
MR. LALLY: What I'm saying is, based on your experience, you understand that there's a difference in the injuries that you might expect based on the type of interaction that a pedestrian has with a vehicle, yes?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And then if someone is wrapping forward, projected, and then the vehicle overruns that person, there'd be a whole other host of injuries that you'd expect to see based on being overrun by the vehicle, correct?
DR. WOLFE: There could be, yes.
MR. LALLY: Now the testing that you did — these are essentially experiments that you're doing, correct?
DR. WOLFE: That's fair, yes.
MR. LALLY: And am I correct in saying that in scientific experiments there are certain things called variables that you're trying to account for, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: I would say that's fair, yes.
MR. LALLY: And essentially what you're trying to do is control as many of those variables as you can in order to best replicate whatever the conditions were at the time that what you're testing to see actually occurred, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now what if anything did you do to control variables in relation to temperature?
DR. WOLFE: So one of the things we did with all of the tail lamp assemblies that we tested is that we preconditioned them to approximately 28 degrees, so that they had reached a steady state temperature before we subjected them to the impact testing.
MR. LALLY: And where in your report does it say that?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe that's explicitly stated.
MR. LALLY: Is it implicitly stated anywhere in your report?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I'm telling you that's part of what we did for the testing.
MR. LALLY: I understand that's what your testimony is, but you wrote a report, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Right.
MR. LALLY: And I don't know that I detailed every single part of the test —
DR. WOLFE: Again, we summarized it.
MR. LALLY: Understood. So what did you do to control any variable as far as wind?
DR. WOLFE: Well, when you're talking about a projectile such as a glass being projected at 37 miles per hour, there would be probably minimal effects in terms of the wind even if there was a blizzard going on. Again, what we're going after here is ultimately conducting a test such that the drinking glass arrived at the location of the tail light. So if you're trying to say that — okay, he threw it this way and the wind blew it toward the tail light — sure, that could be a possibility.
MR. LALLY: And so I'm not trying to say anything — I'm just asking: are you aware that there was a blizzard and that there were wind gusts up to 37 mph during the time that this collision occurred, and that that's not accounted for in your test? Were you aware of that, sir?
DR. WOLFE: I'm aware that there was inclement weather at the time, yes.
MR. LALLY: Now with respect to what type of glass did you use?
DR. WOLFE: So we used a rocks drinking glass. That's a glass that has a thicker base and a shallower sidewall.
MR. LALLY: So what I'm asking is — was it a cocktail glass, was it a pint glass? What kind of drinking glass are we talking?
DR. WOLFE: A rocks drinking glass.
MR. LALLY: And how tall is that rocks drinking glass that you used?
DR. WOLFE: If I had to estimate, I think it was about three or four inches tall, probably.
MR. LALLY: And the thickness — did you measure that, as far as the thickness of the bottom of the glass?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. LALLY: Was the thickness of the bottom of the glass more thick or less thick than the top of the glass?
DR. WOLFE: Are you talking about this in comparison to the sidewall?
MR. LALLY: I'm talking about in comparison to itself. So you have a glass — this rocks glass — was the bottom thicker or the top thicker?
DR. WOLFE: The sidewall would be taller, if you will, than the base.
MR. LALLY: And so when you're projecting this thing out of the device that you created — whatever it was — are you facing sort of the top of the glass where you would be sipping out of, or the bottom of the glass at the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: So in the testing, the interaction between the tail light and the glass was primarily between the base and the tail light.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to — I asked you a little bit about the video — and you weren't aware of Mr. O'Keefe exiting from the Waterfall Bar at 12:11 in the morning, about 15 to 20 minutes before he was struck by a vehicle. You're not aware of that?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of that.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to that particular establishment, was there anything stopping you or the other doctor that you were working with from going to that establishment, finding out what kind of glasses they had, getting an actual cocktail glass from that establishment?
DR. WOLFE: I had no idea that video existed.
MR. LALLY: Did you even know that Mr. O'Keefe was at a bar before he was struck by the vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: I believe that in one of the incident reports we reviewed, there was — I think a narrative about that — that they had been at a bar drinking, yes.
MR. LALLY: How is it that you determined where on the tail light assembly to aim?
DR. WOLFE: So we looked at the fracture pattern and what it appeared to be — that it was emanating from basically where the clear portion meets the red cover. We kind of saw that the fracture pattern emanated from that, so that's where we targeted it.
MR. LALLY: Now when you did this testing, as far as the sort of breakage or the pieces that came off the tail light, is it fair to say that they were of sort of different shapes and sizes of the broken pieces?
DR. WOLFE: Sure.
MR. LALLY: Consistent with the broken pieces that were found on the scene near Mr. O'Keefe's body?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, I would say that, sir.
MR. LALLY: Now I know you may not be the person for this, but just as far as your — you reviewed some of the autopsy report and medical findings in regard to Mr. O'Keefe, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And the injuries to Mr. O'Keefe were primarily on the right side of his body, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: So there were injuries to his right arm and forearm, elbow area, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: There was bruising to his right hand — do you recall that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: There was an abrasion to the outside or posterior of his right leg near his knee — you recall that?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that I recall that off the top of my head.
MR. LALLY: And do you recall sort of the skull fracture, or the laceration — the skull fracture was on sort of the right back of his head?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now from the reports that you reviewed, were you aware that when Mr. O'Keefe's body was discovered by the defendant and two of Mr. O'Keefe's friends, that the defendant was the only one who could see him in the conditions —
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. LALLY: As far as the lighting was concerned in that area where Mr. O'Keefe's body was found, are you aware there was no overhead street or ambient lighting or anything like that?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of that.
MR. LALLY: And you didn't do any visibility analysis or anything in relation to this case, correct?
DR. WOLFE: That wasn't a part of my scope in this case.
MR. LALLY: Well, as far as part of your scope — you indicated earlier that there were questions that you didn't find in the materials, that you have conducted experiments to prove or disprove, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Well, again, the entity that retained us in this asked us to evaluate whether or not the damage to the vehicle and the injuries to Mr. O'Keefe were consistent with an interaction between the two.
MR. LALLY: So you were at least somewhat restricted in the scope of what you could do based on the parameters given to you by the agency that hired you, is that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: Sure.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as any statements by the defendant to investigating troopers, either that afternoon or that morning when Mr. O'Keefe's body was discovered, were you familiar with any of those?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
DR. WOLFE: I am not familiar with — sure.
COURT OFFICER: You are unmuted.
MR. LALLY: So doctor, with regard to the defendant's statements — at any point were you — did you review materials or were you made aware that the defendant said to multiple people on scene, "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him"?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of that.
MR. LALLY: Can I have a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now within the reports that you and the other doctors submitted, there's an indication that if either Mr. O'Keefe's arm or head had interacted with the tail light, there would be some expectation that either blood or DNA would be contained on that tail light, is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: I believe yes, that was stated in the report.
MR. LALLY: And at any point were you made aware that Mr. O'Keefe's DNA actually was recovered from that tail light assembly from the defendant's vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: No, I was not.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as forensic reports, what if anything were you provided in reference to that, other than the initial crime scene report?
DR. WOLFE: Are you talking about specific to the scene, or forensic reports to the body?
MR. LALLY: Forensic reports specific to the evidence that was recovered from the scene and from the defendant's vehicle.
DR. WOLFE: Only what would be listed in the report.
MR. LALLY: Now you indicated — it's one of the materials that you were provided and you reviewed — the EDR, event data recorder, the crash data retrieval report, yes?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Okay. Now were you shown anything as far as a crash reconstruction report from a trooper from the state police?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. LALLY: And the EDR data that you observed — did that contain any sort of usable data?
DR. WOLFE: There was no events recovered on the black box.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to there being no events recovered on the EDR or the black box, in a pedestrian collision, is that unusual?
DR. WOLFE: It is not.
MR. LALLY: And why not?
DR. WOLFE: Well, because you're talking about — excuse me — a very large weight difference between the vehicle and the pedestrian. So ultimately, what the vehicle is constantly monitoring is acceleration, which gets back to a term called Delta V. So when the vehicle doesn't experience a big Delta V, typically the threshold for a non-deployment event — where you're not firing airbags or any safety mechanisms — but the vehicle wakes up and says, "Hey, there was something that I potentially hit" — and it's usually at a threshold of about five miles per hour. So again, given the weight difference, we usually don't see Delta Vs that high with pedestrians.
MR. LALLY: And is that in some respects because what the EDR and what the safety restraint systems are designed to protect is the occupants of the vehicle? Correct?
DR. WOLFE: That's fair, yes. I mean, there are more innovations as far as vehicles that are more modern or released earlier that have certain pedestrian — or protections for other vehicles — but primarily what they're focused on is the occupant of the vehicle.
MR. LALLY: Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, at any point in time, were you shown any TCH stream data — Toyota TCH stream data — from the defendant's vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. LALLY: So you weren't shown any data indicating that the defendant's vehicle was being operated in reverse?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. LALLY: So with regard to the defendant's statements, were you also not told that the defendant told several people that she had just gotten into a fight with Mr. O'Keefe right before she dropped him off at 34 Fairview Road?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. LALLY: Now, with regard to pedestrian collisions, you're familiar with the physics term — I'm presuming, doctor — as far as center of mass?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what kind of role does a center of mass for a pedestrian play in relation to the center of mass of a vehicle, as far as how the two interact?
DR. WOLFE: Well, it depends again on the vehicle structure, and again, when you're talking about where's the hood height, the bumper height, and the CG — or the center of gravity — of the pedestrian, that again will kind of dictate how they interact — between the vehicle and the pedestrian.
MR. LALLY: Now, typically the typical pedestrian collision, again — that we were speaking about before — is in relation to a pedestrian struck by the front of a vehicle. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And so in a typical pedestrian collision, that involves more of an assumption of the velocity of the striking vehicle than you would see occur in sort of a sideswipe? Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
MR. LALLY: In a typical pedestrian collision, that would involve more of an assumption of the velocity of the striking vehicle by the pedestrian than you would see in a typical sideswipe collision. Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: If I understand your question correctly, yes. If the vehicle is striking the center of gravity of a pedestrian, as opposed to just, for instance, the limb, yes — the center of gravity of the body will be accelerated up to that speed.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to the defendant's vehicle, again, you never actually looked at the defendant's vehicle. Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: It wasn't necessary.
MR. LALLY: And did you look at the actual tail light housing from the defendant's vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: I had sufficient photographs of the tail light.
MR. LALLY: Did you ever look at the actual physical broken pieces of the tail light from the defendant's vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I had sufficient photographs that documented the fragments and pieced them together.
MR. LALLY: And you're aware, at least, that the fragments that were recovered on scene were then sort of put back together and overlaid over the tail light housing that was taken from the defendant's vehicle?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And through any of the photos that you observed, did you ever see a piece of metal protruding underneath the broken and shattered plastic pieces from the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: I believe it was a plastic chrome piece.
MR. LALLY: And when you were doing the testing — as far as shooting the drinking glass at the tail light assembly — that tail light assembly was sort of held there by [unintelligible] or something like that? Is that correct? It wasn't actually physically attached to a vehicle you were shooting at?
DR. WOLFE: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as that — you're familiar with — there was a piece of a broken drinking glass that was recovered from the same area where Mr. O'Keefe was found. Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Amongst the fragments of the tail light, yes.
MR. LALLY: And are you familiar with Mr. O'Keefe's DNA being present on those pieces of the exterior of a broken drinking glass located near his body?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe so.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as Mr. O'Keefe's clothing, his fingernails — are you aware that there was DNA of Mr. O'Keefe and no one else recovered from both his fingernails and from a variety of areas of his clothing?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. LALLY: Now, from the crime scene report that you reviewed, are you aware that there was human hair that was located on the right rear quarter panel, near the dent that you were talking about?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Are you familiar — or, are you aware — that subsequent mitochondrial DNA testing found that the mitochondrial DNA profile for that hair was consistent to a probability of 99.89% with the mitochondrial DNA profile of Mr. O'Keefe?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of that.
MR. LALLY: Now, were you also aware that the broken drinking glass with Mr. O'Keefe's DNA on it was found to be consistent with broken drinking glass pieces that were found in the street?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
DR. WOLFE: Can you repeat the question?
MR. LALLY: Sure. Were you aware that the pieces from the exterior of the broken drinking glass found near Mr. O'Keefe's body, with his DNA on it, were then found to be consistent with pieces of broken drinking glass that were located in the street of 34 Fairview Road?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Were you also aware that the pieces of glass that you were talking about from the defendant's bumper were found to be consistent with pieces of glass recovered from the street in front of 34 Fairview Road?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Were you aware that there were microscopic pieces of red and clear plastic — about a sixteenth of an inch by sixteenth of an inch — that were recovered from Mr. O'Keefe's clothing, and they were then found to be consistent with the tail light?
DR. WOLFE: No, I don't believe so.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as again — you weren't provided with any sort of reconstruction report from a trooper from the state police?
DR. WOLFE: No, I was not.
MR. LALLY: Not aware that he took measurements from the ground to where certain items were on the vehicle?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. He didn't see the report.
COURT OFFICER: You are unmuted.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. My apologies. Just a moment. Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, doctor, in the course of your analysis or review of materials here, were you ever provided with a video of the defendant backing out of a garage and making contact with Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle in his driveway at about 5:07 in the morning on January 29th?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as from your review and your testing and everything that you did in this case — if a collision occurred at a lower speed, say 1, 2, anywhere from 0 to 5 mph — would that create the damage to the tail light that you observed in this particular case?
DR. WOLFE: At that speed, no.
MR. LALLY: Then we can do our 2:00. So there were about 10 items that you were provided and reviewed. Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And a number of different items that I just asked you about that you weren't provided with, or you weren't aware of?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And again, in your report, in the very first paragraph, you indicate, "However, ARCCA reserves the right to supplement or revise this report if additional information becomes available." Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. LALLY: I have nothing further.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your honor. Very briefly. Dr. Wolfe, you were asked on cross-examination a couple of questions about a hair — DNA on the outside of the tail light — uh, lens, I'm sorry — the tail light housing and glass material. You recall that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Does any of that change your opinions and conclusions in this case?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: What is your conclusion as to whether or not the damage to the vehicle and the injuries to the human being are consistent or inconsistent with vehicle interaction?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Dr. Wolfe, you are all set, sir.
DR. WOLFE: Thank you.