sidebar Sidebar on Admissibility and Witness Availability
23 lines
At sidebar, the judge told defense counsel that proposed material concerning an incident was not admissible and said the parties had not yet discussed what the court would admit. The court then asked whether the Commonwealth could call another officer rather than give the jury another break; after an assistant prosecutor stepped out to check, the judge sent the jurors out for five minutes for further discussion with defense counsel.
Procedural Ruling on Scope of Sergeant Lank Questioning
48 lines
With the jury out, defense counsel described proposed questions for Sergeant Lank concerning an earlier fight, related complaints and reports, and the involvement of members of the Albert family. The judge allowed limited questioning about Lank's individual relationships with Chris Albert, Brian Albert, and Tim Albert, and about the earlier incident only as relevant to possible bias or favoritism. The judge excluded proposed inquiry into the Mobil gas station incident, a federal investigation, a lawsuit, and not-guilty outcomes, while leaving further questions subject to the testimony and the court's permission. Counsel was directed to alert the judge before beginning that line of questioning so she could instruct the jury.
Direct 380 lines
Lieutenant Michael Lank described responding to 34 Fairview Road after a report that John O'Keefe had been found in the snow. He testified about speaking with Jennifer McCabe and the homeowners, contacting the state police, securing the scene in severe weather, and using a leaf blower to expose apparent blood drops and a cocktail glass. Lank described collecting the glass and blood, storing them at the Canton Police station, and later returning on February 4 when red plastic pieces were found near where O'Keefe had been discovered. The broken glass was admitted as Exhibit 45, and photographs of the plastic piece were admitted as Exhibits 46 and 47.
sidebar Sidebar on 2012-Event Limiting Instruction
9 lines
Defense counsel advised the court that questioning about a relationship and the related incident would begin immediately. The court then instructed jurors that evidence of a 2012 event could be considered, if credible, in assessing the witness's credibility, the investigation's thoroughness, and possible police bias or favoritism.