Rule 14 Objection - Day 4 - Commonwealth v. Read

Defense dismantles first responder Katie McLaughlin's 'I hit him' testimony by exposing discrepancies with her original statement and an undisclosed social connection to the Albert family, while paramedics Woodbury, Whitley, and Becker testify to Read's distressed demeanor and key statements during transport.

← Day 3

Day 5 →

Procedural Rule 14 Objection

1 2:05:50

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I'm so sorry for the false start. I wanted to make one final record on the Court's ruling. I respect the Court's ruling on—

2 2:06:03

JUDGE CANNONE: You can make your record.

3 2:06:05

MR. JACKSON: Maybe it would be better if I—

4 2:06:09

JUDGE CANNONE: Did it over here?

5 2:06:11

MR. JACKSON: I wanted to interpose an objection—

6 2:06:14

JUDGE CANNONE: So I think it would be better if you did it over here. It's a legal— it's just a legal— I don't know what you're doing. Come over here and tell me what you're going to do and then I'll hear you.

7 2:06:35

MR. JACKSON: Yes. Okay. As it relates to the four exhibits that the court deemed were not admissible because of a violation of rule 14, I wanted to elaborate just very briefly.

8 2:06:50

JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead.

9 2:06:51

MR. JACKSON: Our objection — we believe that under rule 14 we were not obligated to present these exhibits to the Commonwealth in discovery. Rule 14 does not require such disclosure when the exhibits are used for impeachment only, and that's exactly what those four exhibits were going to be used for and what we intended to use them for. Had this witness said, "I know Caitlin Albert, we've been friends for ten years, we went to high school together, we've been on day trips together, we've been to the beach together, and we've socialized together," I would not show any photographs. But that's not what she said.

10 2:07:44

MR. JACKSON: What she said was, "I went to high school with a person named Caitlin Albert," which is a bastardization of the truth — that's not the truth — and those four photographs are what got her — in the [unintelligible] process, what got her to admit that she in fact does know Caitlin Albert and knows her on a very, very different level than she first suggested. As the SJC has explained in the case of Commonwealth v. Agar, 400 Mass. 508, pin cite at 513 — it's a 1987 case — that says the following, and then I'll finish my record: quote, "A defendant has a constitutional right to bring to a jury's attention any circumstance which may materially affect the testimony of an adverse witness, which might lead the jury to find that the witness is under an influence to prevaricate.

11 2:09:04

MR. JACKSON: It matters not that the evidence would reveal an otherwise inadmissible fact, such as the witness's commission of a crime. A judge may not restrict cross-examination of a material witness by foreclosing inquiry into a subject that could show bias or prejudice on the part of the witness." End quote. That's exactly what we believe we were entitled to do with McLaughlin as a witness for the Commonwealth. She has bias — or at least the jurors can consider a bias — she has prejudice the jurors could consider, because of a pre-existing relationship with Caitlin Albert about which she was not truthful. So I wanted to make that record and ask the court to reconsider whether or not those four exhibits could be introduced.

12 2:09:43

MR. JACKSON: I don't need to make any big deal about it, I don't want to call her back to the stand, but I think the jurors — now having had the description of those photographs — should be able to see them in evidence.

13 2:10:00

JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So that request is denied. The record's clear. So Miss Read is not going on this view — she just needs to make sure she's back here by the time we return. So Mr. Yannetti — you're nodding — you will contact her and make sure she's back here.

14 2:10:20

MR. YANNETTI: Understood.

Summary

After the jury view instructions, defense attorney Alan Jackson asks to make a record regarding four exhibits the court excluded for violating Rule 14 discovery obligations. Jackson argues that Rule 14 does not require disclosure of impeachment-only exhibits, and that the photographs were necessary to challenge witness McLaughlin's testimony minimizing her relationship with Caitlin Albert. He cites Commonwealth v. Agar (400 Mass. 508, 513) for the constitutional right to expose witness bias through cross-examination. Jackson asks the court to reconsider admitting the four photographs into evidence. Judge Cannone denies the request. The proceeding concludes with a note that Karen Read will not attend the jury view but must return when court resumes.

Procedural Rule 14 Objection

Legal Significance

Jackson preserves the defense's appellate record on the exclusion of impeachment exhibits, arguing a constitutional right under Commonwealth v. Agar to expose witness bias through evidence of undisclosed relationships, regardless of Rule 14 discovery requirements.

Key Quotes

"Rule 14 does not require such disclosure when the exhibits are used for impeachment only, and that's exactly what those four exhibits were going to be used for and what we intended to use them for."
— Alan Jackson Core legal argument — impeachment evidence is exempt from Rule 14 disclosure requirements.

"What she said was, "I went to high school with a person named Caitlin Albert," which is a bastardization of the truth — that's not the truth — and those four photographs are what got her to admit that she in fact does know Caitlin Albert and knows her on a very, very different level than she first suggested."
— Alan Jackson Establishes the defense theory that McLaughlin minimized her relationship with Caitlin Albert during testimony.

"A defendant has a constitutional right to bring to a jury's attention any circumstance which may materially affect the testimony of an adverse witness, which might lead the jury to find that the witness is under an influence to prevaricate."
— Alan Jackson Jackson cites Commonwealth v. Agar (400 Mass. 508) to support the constitutional basis for admitting the impeachment exhibits.

"All right. So that request is denied. The record's clear."
— Beverly J. Cannone Court maintains its ruling excluding the four exhibits despite the defense's constitutional argument.

Credibility Challenges

McLaughlin — Jackson argues McLaughlin minimized her relationship with Caitlin Albert, claiming she only said she 'went to high school with' Albert when photographs show a much closer relationship, suggesting bias or motive to protect Albert.

Evidence Referenced

Four photographs showing McLaughlin's relationship with Caitlin Albert

Topics

Rule 14 discovery obligations for impeachment evidenceMcLaughlin's relationship with Caitlin AlbertCommonwealth v. Agar constitutional right to expose witness biasPreservation of appellate record on excluded exhibitsKaren Read's absence from jury view

← Procedural - Jury Viewing 5 of 9 Greg Woodbury - Direct/Cross →