Commonwealth v. Read — Trial Archive
Trial 2 Trial Day
◀ Day 16 Trial 2 Day 18 ▶

Day 17 - May 16, 2025

Porto, Vallier

Judge Beverly J. Cannone
9Proceedings
5Pages
2Witnesses
1,168Lines
Day 17 of 36
Appearing:
Adam LallyDavid YannettiAndre PortoAshley Vallier

Porto testified that a tail-light swab supported an inclusion of O'Keefe in a three-contributor profile, without dating its deposit; cross addressed comparisons not requested of him. Vallier described debris matches and pre-lab custody limits.

Full day summary

Day 17 centers on two Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory forensic scientists. DNA analyst Andre Porto testifies that a passenger-side tail-light swab produced a three-contributor profile supporting an inclusion of O'Keefe at a stated likelihood ratio, while he cannot determine when it was deposited. On cross, Porto testifies that he had not been asked to make specified comparisons involving the tail-light and broken-glass profiles. Trace analyst Ashley Vallier testifies that specified pieces from road-labeled items mechanically fit the tail-light housing, while separately describing apparent clear plastic from debris labeled as coming from O'Keefe's clothing without further examination. Vallier identifies Trooper Michael Proctor as submission-7's lab submitter, gives March 14 as the lab receipt date, and says she cannot vouch for pre-lab handling. Judge Cannone denies the defense motion concerning Shanon Burgess's updated clock-drift report while allowing broad cross-examination and limited rebuttal through Dr. Welcher.

Key Moments
  • Porto reports that a passenger-side tail-light swab produced a three-contributor profile with a stated likelihood ratio supporting O'Keefe's inclusion; he could not determine when the DNA was deposited. He also identifies 13 specified shirt-stain profiles as single-source.
  • Porto testifies that he was not asked to compare the tail-light profile with Kevin Albert or Kenneth Berkowitz, or the broken-glass profile with Brian Albert or Brian Higgins.
  • Vallier identifies specified road-labeled pieces as mechanically fitting tail-light housing item 3-1, and separately describes apparent clear plastic from debris labeled as coming from O'Keefe's clothing without further examination.
  • Vallier identifies Proctor as submission-7's submitter and March 14 as the lab receipt date, about six weeks after January 29, and says she cannot vouch for pre-lab handling.
  • Judge Cannone denies the defense's Rule 14 motion to exclude Burgess's clock drift report but grants a limited rebuttal for Dr. Welcher and leaves open the possibility of recalling Jennifer McCabe.
Notable Quotes
David Yannetti
“Were you ever asked to compare DNA samples from either Canton Police Detective Kevin Albert or Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz to the DNA profile that you analyzed from that passenger side tail light?”
Yannetti asked Porto whether he had been asked to compare the tail-light profile with Kevin Albert or Kenneth Berkowitz; Porto testified only to the comparison requests he received, a point Yannetti used to advance an incomplete-investigation theme.
Ashley Vallier
“March 14th, 2022.”
Vallier identifies Proctor as submission-7's submitter and March 14 as the lab intake date; she says she cannot vouch for handling before intake, without establishing sole custody or an unaccounted interval.
Beverly J. Cannone
“my findings for the record are that the defendant has not persuaded me of undue surprise or unfair prejudice by this information, and I don't find that there's delayed disclosure”
Judge Cannone's formal ruling denying the defense motion resolves the day's most contentious procedural dispute, preserving the Commonwealth's clock drift evidence while granting the defense cross-examination latitude and a limited rebuttal.
Video thumbnail for Day 17 — Porto, Vallier 3h 49m
Watch →

1. Andre Porto — Direct/Cross/Redirect

After an autopsy stipulation and clip, Porto describes DNA-profile inclusions and limits. Cross covers unidentified contributors and requested comparisons; redirect qualifies clothing mixtures and specified single-source profiles.

→
Procedural
Procedural - Motions
13 lines
Direct
Andre Porto Adam Lally
328 lines
Cross
Andre Porto David Yannetti
160 lines
Redirect
Andre Porto Adam Lally
27 lines

2. Ashley Vallier — Direct (Part 1)

Forensic scientist Ashley Vallier begins direct examination on physical match analysis of eleven questioned road items and item 3-1, the passenger-side tail light from the defendant's vehicle.

→
Direct
Ashley Vallier Adam Lally
357 lines

3. Procedural — Motions (Welcher)

Procedural motions page: defense says Burgess's May 8 clock-drift report, received May 11, changes timing central to its case and seeks Rule 14 relief, four days, and voir dire; Commonwealth says the timeline is unchanged.

→
Procedural
Procedural - Motions (Welcher)
37 lines

Attorney Alessi argues that Shanon Burgess's updated report on clock drift in the Lexus infotainment system, received by the defense on May 11th, fundamentally affects the defense's entire strategy — including prior cross-examinations of Jennifer McCabe, Ian Whiffin, and preparation of defense experts like DiSogra, Gaffney, and ARCCA. He requests the report be rejected as a Rule 14 violation and, failing that, asks for four days to adjust. He also requests a voir dire of Burgess, raising concerns about a possible sequestration order violation. ADA Brennan responds that nothing has changed in the Commonwealth's timeline, that the variance between the Lexus clock and iPhone clock has always been known to both sides, and that Burgess simply identified the specific variance using existing Waze data after DiSogra's analysis was incorrect. Judge Cannone asks whether the Commonwealth opposes a voir dire on the sequestration issue; Brennan opposes, arguing there is no good faith basis. The matter is left with the defense preparing to present the specific report page showing the clock adjustment.

4. Ashley Vallier — Direct (Part 2)/Cross/Redirect

Vallier continues the tail-light reconstruction. Cross addresses an empty reconstruction spot and her pre-lab handling limits; on redirect, she says she would have to count and meant only the pieces previously stated.

→
Direct
Ashley Vallier Adam Lally
107 lines
Cross
Ashley Vallier David Yannetti
117 lines
Redirect
Ashley Vallier Adam Lally
11 lines

5. Procedural - Ruling (Welcher)

Judge Cannone denies the Burgess clock-drift disclosure challenge, permits extensive cross-examination, and allows limited rebuttal after Welcher, while leaving witness recall open if the defense later shows need.

→
Procedural
Procedural - Welcher ruling
11 lines

Judge Cannone delivers her ruling on the defense's motion challenging Shanon Burgess's updated report on Lexus infotainment clock drift. She finds the defendant has not demonstrated undue surprise or unfair prejudice and does not find delayed disclosure. She denies the request for a voir dire on the sequestration issue but notes the defense may cross-examine Burgess extensively on what he knew, when he changed his report, and any sequestration concerns. She addresses Dr. Welcher's testimony, confirming he will testify in the Commonwealth's case-in-chief on previously disclosed material, and grants the defense a limited rebuttal on the new information, with scope to be defined after Welcher's testimony. She also leaves open the possibility of recalling witnesses like Jennifer McCabe if the defense demonstrates need after Burgess's direct examination.

◀ Day 16 Trial 2 Day 18 ▶