Commonwealth v. Read — Trial Archive
Trial 2 Trial Day
◀ Day 14 Trial 2 Day 16 ▶

Day 15 - May 14, 2025

Judge Beverly J. Cannone · Trial 2 · 9 proceedings · 1,828 lines

Day 15 of 36
Appearing:
🏛️ Adam Lally 🏛️ Hank Brennan 🛡️ David Yannetti 🛡️ Robert Alessi 🗣️ Evan Brent 🗣️ J. Ryan Gallerani 🗣️ Maureen Hartnett 👮 Zachary Clark

Crime scene witnesses described physical-evidence work, while defense questioning probed limits on prearrival access and later participation; Hartnett gave no vehicle-strike conclusion, and Gallerani was not asked to swab three officials.

Full day summary

Day 15 moved through four forensic and documentation witnesses — crime scene troopers Clark and Brent, forensic scientist Hartnett, and DNA collector Gallerani — as the prosecution built its physical evidence record. Defense questioning established limits in Clark's knowledge of Proctor's vehicle access before Clark arrived and in Brent's knowledge of access to 34 Fairview Road before February 3; Brent observed no crime scene tape or tent and was unaware of a guard when he arrived. Clark said February 1 was the only date he was called to 34 Fairview, while Brent said his only involvement was February 3 and that he was not asked to return on the dates Yannetti addressed. Hartnett's direct documented damage on the black Lexus, an apparent hair and apparent glass fragments from the bumper area, and blood-confirmed staining on O'Keefe's clothing. She collected a tail-light exterior swab for potential biological material and testified it was quantity-limited and cut into tubes for further testing; the whole swab would have to be used for DNA analysis, which she did not perform. On cross, Alessi elicited that Hartnett drew no conclusions linking vehicle damage to a pedestrian strike, the undercarriage screened negative for blood, glass merely rested on the bumper, and the hair was unsecured. Gallerani testified that he was not asked to collect buccal swabs from Canton Police Chief Berkowitz, Detective Kevin Albert, or Lt. Brian Tully.

Key Moments
  • Clark says he did not know how long Proctor had been with Karen Read's vehicle, whether anyone monitored him, or how much access he had before Clark arrived.
  • Brent testifies that when he arrived February 3 he saw no crime scene tape or tent and was unaware of a guard; he did not know who had accessed the lawn before then.
  • Hartnett testifies that vehicle undercarriage blood screening was negative and that she drew no forensic conclusions linking any observed vehicle damage to a pedestrian strike.
  • Alessi establishes that apparent glass rested on the bumper, an apparent hair was unsecured on the smooth quarter panel, and Hartnett took two swabs from one of six cups; those swabs were not tested for blood or DNA.
  • Yannetti establishes that Gallerani was not asked to collect DNA buccal swabs from Canton Police Chief Berkowitz, Detective Kevin Albert, or MSP Lieutenant Brian Tully.
Notable Quotes
David Yannetti
“Other than the police officers standing there on February 3rd, the lawn was open to anyone who wanted to look at it, just like any other lawn on the street. Right.”
Yannetti's framing of 34 Fairview Road as simply 'any other lawn' captures the defense's chain-of-custody argument, but Brent did not adopt that proposition: he said he did not know who had access before he arrived February 3.
Maureen Hartnett
“Correct. At this time, those were not tested for blood at all. So I couldn't confirm that they were blood, and no additional testing was done.”
Hartnett says she took two swabs from one of six cups and no blood or DNA testing was performed on those swabs. She returned the cups to a Canton police officer and did not know who later controlled them.
Zachary Clark
“February 1st was the only date I was called to 34 Fairview, sir.”
Clark's confirmation that February 1 was the only date he was called to 34 Fairview establishes only his own involvement; it does not establish whether later recoveries occurred or how they were documented.
Video thumbnail for Day 15 — Clark, Brent, Hartnett, Gallerani 7h 20m
Watch this day Day 15 — Clark, Brent, Hartnett, Gallerani Watch with synced transcript →

Zachary Clark - Direct/Cross

After two Karen Read interview clips, Sergeant Zachary Clark described February 1 vehicle and scene documentation. On cross, defense explored his limited knowledge of pre-arrival vehicle access and his absence from later Fairview calls.

→
Direct
Zachary Clark Adam Lally
133 lines

Sergeant Zachary Clark of the Massachusetts State Police crime scene services section testified about his role documenting the search warrant execution on Karen Read's vehicle at the Canton Police Department on February 1, 2022. He described photographing the vehicle's exterior and interior, processing the front passenger compartment for fingerprints (finding no usable impressions), and traveling to 34 Fairview Road to take overall photographs of the snow-covered front lawn area near the flagpole. Clark also documented brake and acceleration tests performed by reconstruction Trooper Joe Paul, as well as the vehicle's backup warning system display. Several exhibits were introduced, including a disc of crime scene photos and photographs of the vehicle's odometer and backup warning system screen.

Cross
Zachary Clark David Yannetti
123 lines

Attorney David Yannetti questioned Sergeant Zachary Clark on three main areas. First, Clark testified that other Norfolk District Attorney's Office investigators were present that morning and that, before his own arrival to process Karen Read's vehicle, he did not know how long Michael Proctor had been with it, whether anyone was monitoring him, or how much access he had. Second, Yannetti questioned Clark about his participation in the July 2023 interview of Colin Albert — conducted a year and a half after the incident — and established that Proctor wrote the report, chose its language, and did not have Clark review it before publication. Several questions about Proctor's connections to the Albert family were sustained. Third, Clark testified that February 1 was the only date he was called to 34 Fairview Road; he was not called on February 8, 10, 11, or 18. The prosecution declined redirect.

+1 procedural segment

Evan Brent — Direct/Cross/Redirect

Trooper Evan Brent describes February 3 photography at 34 Fairview Road and 1 Meadows A. Cross addresses his limited personal knowledge of prior access; redirect covers notes and one item under snow.

→
Direct
Evan Brent Adam Lally
132 lines

Trooper Evan Brent, assigned to the Massachusetts State Police crime scene services section, testified about his work on February 3, 2022. He first responded to 34 Fairview Road where he photographed items being excavated from snow banks by the state police detective unit, including members Tully, Bukhenik, Proctor, De Castro, and Moore. He then accompanied Trooper Proctor to 1 Meadows A, where he photographed a Chevrolet Traverse from multiple angles and documented two garage doors and a camera above the garage. Brent testified he observed no visible damage to either the vehicle or the garage doors. Crime scene photos from both locations were admitted as Exhibits 135 and 136.

Cross
Evan Brent David Yannetti
52 lines

Attorney Yannetti's cross-examination of Trooper Brent focused on Brent's personal-knowledge limits concerning scene security and his nonparticipation after February 3. Brent testified that he photographed 34 Fairview Road and a Chevy Traverse at 1 Meadows A on February 3, 2022, and that he had no personal knowledge of who had access to the lawn or the Traverse during the preceding five days. Brent was not aware of a guard near the lawn and testified that, when he arrived on February 3, there was no crime scene tape or tent. When Yannetti asked whether the lawn had been open like any other lawn, Brent replied that he did not know. Yannetti also asked about February 8, 10, 11, and 18; Brent said his only involvement was on February 3 and confirmed he was not asked to return on the dates addressed. The examination was brief and methodical, with Brent agreeing to nearly every proposition.

Redirect
Evan Brent Adam Lally
16 lines

In a brief redirect, ADA Lally asked whether Trooper Brent wrote a report and took notes concerning his February 3, 2022 response. Brent testified that his notes detailed several collected items, response times, and others on scene. After the court sustained a broader snow-accumulation question, Lally asked about the items at recovery. Brent estimated that one particular item was about a foot to a foot and a half under snow.

J. Ryan Gallerani — Direct/Cross

Needham Sgt. Gallerani describes collecting DNA swabs from Trooper Proctor and Sgt. Bukhenik. On cross, he says he was not asked to swab three other law-enforcement figures; the testimony does not establish whether someone else did.

→
Direct
J. Ryan Gallerani Adam Lally
50 lines

ADA Lally calls Sgt. J. Ryan Gallerani of the Needham Police Department, who testifies about his certification in DNA buccal swab collection through Massachusetts State Police training since 2015. On January 16, 2024, Gallerani collected buccal swab samples from Trooper Proctor and Sgt. Bukhenik at the Norfolk County DA's office in Canton. He describes the physical collection process — swabbing the inside of the mouth, air drying, sealing the kit, and photographing it — then securing the samples in evidence at Needham PD before shipping them to Bode Technology in Lorton, Virginia per the lab's instructions. Lally establishes that Gallerani had no involvement with the Canton or state police investigation, positioning him as a neutral collector.

Cross
J. Ryan Gallerani David Yannetti
13 lines

Defense attorney Yannetti conducts a brief three-question cross-examination of Sgt. Gallerani, asking whether he was ever asked to collect buccal swab samples from Canton Police Chief Berkowitz, Canton Detective Kevin Albert, or Massachusetts State Police Lieutenant Brian Tully. Gallerani answers no to each. The prosecution declines redirect, and the witness is excused.

Maureen Hartnett — Direct

Forensic scientist Maureen Hartnett describes SUV damage, apparent hair and glass, a tail-light swab collected for potential biological material, and nine marked sweatshirt damage areas across the sleeves and chest.

→
Direct
Maureen Hartnett Hank Brennan
745 lines

Maureen Hartnett, a forensic scientist with the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory criminalistics unit, testifies about responding to the Canton Police Department on February 1, 2022 to examine a black Lexus SUV. She documents damage to the rear passenger area including scratches, a dent, and a broken tail light, and collects an apparent hair from the rear quarter panel, apparent glass fragments from the bumper, and a swab from the exterior of the tail light housing for potential biological material. Blood screening on the vehicle undercarriage is negative. Hartnett then describes her lab examination of John O'Keefe's clothing — a gray sweatshirt with nine marked areas across the sleeves and chest, an orange T-shirt, jeans, and boxer shorts — noting red-brown stains that tested positive on screening and confirmatory blood tests. She collects debris scrapings from the clothing items, which are forwarded to the trace unit for further analysis.

Maureen Hartnett — Cross (Part 1)

Alessi challenges Hartnett's vehicle examination: she drew no link to a pedestrian strike, two swabs from one of six cups were not tested for blood or DNA, and she did not know who later controlled the returned cups.

→
Cross
Maureen Hartnett Robert Alessi
551 lines

Robert Alessi cross-examines forensic scientist Maureen Hartnett about her February 1, 2022 examination of the black Lexus SUV at the Canton Police Department sallyport. Alessi systematically elicits that Hartnett drew no conclusions linking the vehicle damage (scratches, dent, broken taillight) to a pedestrian strike, that all damage could have been pre-existing before January 29, 2022, and that blood screening of the undercarriage was negative with no visible stains or tissue found anywhere on the vehicle. He examines six solo cups containing red-brown stains: Hartnett swabbed only one cup, the swabs received no blood or DNA testing, and she returned the cups to the Canton police officer who presented them, without knowing who held them afterward. Alessi questions how glass fragments could remain merely 'resting' on the bumper after a roughly 60-mile journey through winter weather with 15.7 mph average winds, and highlights that a hair found on the smooth vertical quarter panel was completely unsecured and easily removed. He also raises questions about whether a photo showed two glass evidence stickers or one sticker and its reflection, and whether the hair changed orientation between two photographs.

◀ Day 14 Trial 2 Day 16 ▶