Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveAndre Porto - Direct/Cross/Redirect
528 linesCOURT CLERK: Hear ye, all persons having any business before the Honorable Beverly Cannone, Justice of the Norfolk Superior Court and for the county of Norfolk, give your attendance and you shall be heard. God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Court is now open. You may be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning again, counsel. Good morning again, ma'am. Good morning, jurors. So, I appreciate your patience. Um, I have to ask you those three questions. Were you all able to follow my instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since we left yesterday? Everyone said yes affirmatively. Were you also able to follow my instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Everyone said yes or nodded affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case since we left yesterday?
JUDGE CANNONE: I have one other important instruction for you folks and it's so important that each and every juror can hear the evidence — or the testimony that's presented — can follow the testimony and can understand and evaluate the testimony of each witness and the exhibits. In order to do that, I just want to be very clear that it's important that people do not comment on the evidence or make any comments. Um, once you enter the room, it's probably a good idea to just think — just listen. Don't talk, don't make any facial expressions, no muttering under your breath, no audible noises, because people need to hear what's going on and to understand everything. So, out of respect for your fellow jurors, I would ask that you be very careful to make sure you don't do that.
JUDGE CANNONE: And out of respect to the lawyers who work so hard to get this case tried, your first witness, please.
MR. BRENNAN: Or if I could begin by offering a stipulation that's agreed to between the parties.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Can we turn the AC down, please?
MR. BRENNAN: Thank you. Yes, your honor. If I may, I'd like to read a stipulation agreement between the Commonwealth and the defense.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. BRENNAN: And the stipulation between the parties is as follows. Now comes the Commonwealth and Karen Read, the defendant in the above-captioned matter. Both parties respectfully stipulate to the following. The two Massachusetts State Police troopers present at the autopsy conducted by the medical examiner, Dr. Scordi-Bello, on January 31st, 2022, were Trooper Keefe and Trooper Watson. Former Trooper Michael Proctor was not present. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: And yes, thank you. With that, your honor —
MR. BRENNAN: I'd like to introduce and play clip number 21.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Hold on one second, please. I just want that. Can the jury hear better with that on? [video clip - witness unknown]: So John's laying there, his left and his right, and I approach John from the left. That's where the street is. And he had a piece of glass like perched on his nose, just wedged like a splinter would be. And I just pulled it. And as soon as I pulled it, it just gushed blood down his face.
MR. BRENNAN: So we need this marked — we have the item 169. I'll call Andre Porto to the stand.
COURT CLERK: administers oath — audio garbled ...the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally, whenever you're ready.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, your honor. Good morning, sir.
MR. PORTO: Good morning.
MR. LALLY: Could you please introduce yourself to the jury, spelling your last name for the court?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, my name is Andre Porto. Last name spelled P-O-R-T-O.
MR. LALLY: And what do you do for work, sir?
MR. PORTO: Uh, I'm a forensic scientist II in the DNA unit at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab.
MR. LALLY: And where did you go to school?
MR. PORTO: I went to — I received my undergraduate bachelor of science in microbiology from the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, and then I received a master of science in biomedical forensic sciences at the Boston University School of Medicine.
MR. LALLY: Now following — following your ...education, where did you go to work?
MR. PORTO: I started at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab in the DNA unit.
MR. LALLY: And how long have you worked at the state lab?
JUDGE CANNONE: Slow down.
MR. PORTO: Oh, yeah, sorry. Sorry.
MR. LALLY: How long have you worked at the state lab, sir?
MR. PORTO: Since September 2019.
MR. LALLY: Now, when you joined the lab, what was your position and title that you were initially hired for?
MR. PORTO: I was hired as a forensic scientist 1.
MR. LALLY: Now, can you please explain to the jury your duties and responsibilities as a forensic scientist 1?
MR. PORTO: Sure. So a forensic scientist 1 is a training position where we're hired and we undergo an extensive training program where we undergo the analysis process in training casework samples, where we learn how to do the lab work and analyze profiles, and at the end of this training I took a competency test to make sure that I was able to accurately conduct the DNA analysis process. And once I passed that, I was then put on to do casework, and a year after completing both my competency test and the year after my hire date, I was then promoted to a forensic scientist 2.
MR. LALLY: And so you're currently a forensic scientist 2. Is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what is the difference between a forensic scientist 1 and a forensic scientist 2?
MR. PORTO: So a forensic scientist 2 is just the automatic promotion that you get after a year of hire and passing the initial competency test, and being able to do the DNA analysis process in casework samples.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, what type of analysis do you currently do at the Massachusetts State Police crime laboratory?
MR. PORTO: I can do the DNA analysis process in casework and known samples. That includes the lab work as well as analyzing the DNA profiles that are generated from the work.
MR. LALLY: Now, first, just in general terms, but specifically with reference to DNA analysis, can you explain to the jury how that analysis is performed?
MR. PORTO: Sure. So there are four steps in the analysis process. The first step is extraction, where we apply heat and chemicals to the samples to break open the cells and release that DNA to be available for use. Step two is called quantitation, where we take a small sample of that extracted DNA — we use chemicals and run it through an instrument to estimate how much DNA we extracted. And then we proceed to step three, which is called amplification, and that's basically — think of it as a molecular photocopier — where we target specific areas of the DNA to make millions of copies of it. And then we go to detection, where we run it through an instrument and we generate the DNA profile as an electronic file on a computer.
MR. LALLY: Now, is the state lab where you work accredited?
MR. PORTO: Yes, it is.
MR. LALLY: And by whom?
MR. PORTO: We are accredited by an organization called ANAB, which stands for ANSI National Accreditation Board. And ANSI stands for American National Standards Institute.
JUDGE CANNONE: I need you to slow down, please.
MR. PORTO: Sorry. Sorry.
MR. LALLY: Now, Mr. Porto, are there steps taken in your lab during that process that you were just explaining to prevent against contamination?
MR. PORTO: Yes, there are.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain what those are?
MR. PORTO: Sure. So there are various steps. One step to prevent contamination between analysts would be to bleach and wipe down the workstations before use and after. Another way to prevent DNA transfer from analysts to the samples would be to wear personal protective equipment such as lab coats, gloves, masks, hair nets, and beard guards. And a way to prevent transfer from sample to sample would be to frequently change gloves as well as only have one sample open at a time.
MR. LALLY: Now, with your work at the lab, is there a review process that your work undergoes?
MR. PORTO: Yes, there is.
MR. LALLY: And can you describe that process to the jury?
MR. PORTO: Sure. So once I complete my work, the file undergoes two types of reviews. The first is a technical review, where another qualified analyst will take the file and they'll do their own independent assessment and make sure that they come up with the conclusions and that they agree with the conclusions that I reached. And they'll also make sure that all the protocols were followed and every decision is scientifically sound. Once that review is completed, it undergoes an administrative review, where another qualified analyst will then look through the file and they look for clerical errors such as typos or missing page numbers or missing case numbers. Once those two reviews are completed, the results can then be reported out.
MR. LALLY: Now, as a part of that accreditation process that you were speaking about a few moments ago, do you undergo anything called proficiency testing?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury what that proficiency testing process consists of?
MR. PORTO: Yeah. So a proficiency test is a test that's administered twice a year by an external vendor. And the results of this test are not known to the analyst at the time. And we basically treat it like it's a real case, where it undergoes the analysis process as if it were a real case. And this test is used to show that the analyst demonstrates ongoing competency in the DNA analysis process, and successful completion of the test is required to maintain qualification as an analyst.
MR. LALLY: And what areas do you specifically undergo proficiency testing in?
MR. PORTO: DNA analysis.
MR. LALLY: And have you successfully completed each of those proficiency tests that you've taken?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, Mr. Porto, could you explain to the jury what exactly is DNA?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, so DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid and it's basically the building block that makes us who we are. We each have two copies of our DNA, one that we inherit from mom and one that we inherit from dad. And this combination makes sure that, with the exception of identical twins, we all have different DNA.
MR. LALLY: And is DNA the same in every cell of a person's body?
MR. PORTO: Yes. So what that means is if I were to take a blood sample and a saliva sample from the same person, the same DNA profile will be generated.
MR. LALLY: Now, you spoke a bit earlier about the different steps included in the DNA testing. If you could, just a little bit slower, go through each of those four steps again for the jury.
MR. PORTO: Sure. So like I said, it's a four-step process: extraction, quantitation, amplification, and detection. So extraction — we use chemicals and heat to burst open the cells to make that DNA available for use. Quantitation, step two — we take a small sample of that extracted DNA, we use a different set of chemicals and an instrument to estimate how much DNA is available. Amplification is the third step, which I mentioned is basically a molecular photocopier where it makes millions of copies of specific areas of the DNA. And then the fourth and last step is detection, where we run those amplified copies through an instrument and we generate the DNA profile as an electronic file on the computer.
MR. LALLY: Now, Mr. Porto, what is STR?
MR. PORTO: So STR stands for short tandem repeats, and they're the locations that we're making the millions of copies of.
MR. LALLY: Now, in your work at the lab, you have something that's referred to as a known item.
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury what a known item is?
MR. PORTO: Sure. So a known item is an item that's taken directly from a person to be used as a reference sample. So we know what the source of that profile is.
MR. LALLY: And conversely, what is a questioned item?
MR. PORTO: A questioned item is an item that's taken, let's say, from a crime scene where we don't know what the source is.
MR. LALLY: Now, do you also have terminology within your lab as far as a parent versus a child item?
MR. PORTO: Yes, we do.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain how those labels are used and how they reference what you do in your work?
MR. PORTO: Sure. So a parent item is, for example, the original item, and the child is a sample of that item. So for example, this box of tissues would be the parent item, and if you were to swab the outside, the swab would be the child item. So the box of tissues would receive, let's say, an item of 1-1. The swabbing of the outside would receive an item of 1-1.1.
MR. LALLY: Now, what are positive and negative controls?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, so a positive control is a known sample with a known DNA profile that we use in every step of the DNA analysis process to make sure that each step and instrument worked as expected and properly. And then a negative control is a sample that has no DNA in it. It only receives the chemicals that we use. And that's to ensure that the chemicals that we're using don't have any DNA inherent to them.
MR. LALLY: Now, when you as an analyst or forensic scientist 2 are assigned work within the DNA unit, where do you retrieve that evidence from?
MR. PORTO: Yeah. So I retrieve it from a locked cold room that's only accessible via key card.
MR. LALLY: Now, why are items kept in cold storage?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, the cold storage helps preserve the DNA for long-term storage.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the heat versus the cold, why is it specifically kept — or why does the coldness of the storage room help preserve the item?
MR. PORTO: The cold can help prevent, let's say, growth of bacteria and mold that can degrade DNA.
MR. LALLY: And what does heat do conversely in reference to an item of forensic value?
MR. PORTO: Heat can help degrade DNA and also promotes bacterial and mold growth that can further degrade that DNA.
MR. LALLY: Now, when you receive an item from the cold storage, how is that item typically packaged when you retrieve it from there?
MR. PORTO: Sure. So the item comes in these clear transparent plastic sealed containers that has a label with a case number on it, and inside of that each sample is within a small plastic tube that has a label with a case number and item number.
MR. LALLY: Now, at some point, were you assigned to perform some work on a lab case number 22-02184 pertaining to this defendant, Karen Read?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: And what type of work in general terms were you assigned to do in this case?
MR. PORTO: I was assigned to do the DNA analysis process.
MR. LALLY: And that was on several items. Is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And could you explain to the jury the sort of process that you used to analyze evidence in this case?
MR. PORTO: Sure. So the case underwent the four steps that I explained before. So extraction, quantitation, amplification, and detection.
MR. LALLY: And there was a known standard that was done in this case, specifically in item number 8-1.1.1. Is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And did another analyst test and report the results from the known blood standard from that item 8-1.1?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And how is that done?
MR. PORTO: Yeah. So that undergoes the same process that I explained. It'll go through the four steps — extraction, quantitation, amplification, detection — and then the analyst that did the interpretation and reported the known standard out, they went through the profile to make sure that it's from one person, or single source, and once that went through the review process that I explained — so technical, administrative review — and once that was all completed, the standard was available to be used for comparisons.
MR. LALLY: And to whom was that known standard identified as belonging?
MR. PORTO: John O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: Now, you used the word "single source." Can you explain to the jury what your understanding of that term is based on your training and experience?
MR. PORTO: Sure. So a single source is just a DNA profile that has one contributor to it. So only one person contributed DNA to that profile.
MR. LALLY: What exactly is a DNA profile?
MR. PORTO: Yeah. So a DNA profile is basically the combination of all of the locations that we amplified during the third step of the process. And it's basically — you can think of it as like a chart like an EKG where it has peaks and valleys and each peak has a specific number, and the DNA profile is just a combination of all those numbers put together.
MR. LALLY: Now, can you explain to the jury in general terms to start with the process of comparison between a known standard and a questioned or unknown standard?
MR. PORTO: Sure. So first, I did the analysis on the questioned items. I did the four steps. I analyzed the profiles that were generated. I then interpreted — making sure that I could determine the number of contributors. And once that was completed, I then used the standard that was available and compared it to all the profiles that were suitable for comparison.
MR. LALLY: Now sir, starting with item 3-1.1. What was that a sample from?
MR. PORTO: That was a sample from tail light, passenger, and from a specific vehicle.
MR. LALLY: Is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, information were you given as to that vehicle — that the swab from the tail light was from?
MR. PORTO: Could — do you mean like the license plate?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
MR. PORTO: Could I refer to my notes?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
MR. PORTO: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, with the court's permission — this is a little detail testimony. I don't have a problem.
JUDGE CANNONE: Does the defense object?
MR. JACKSON: I do not object.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. PORTO: So the license plate was 3GC684.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to the swab from the tail light, were you able to generate a DNA profile from that item?
MR. PORTO: I was.
MR. LALLY: And from your comparative analysis from that questioned item to that of the known standard of John O'Keefe, what did you conclude?
MR. PORTO: So the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors including male DNA, and the DNA profile from this item is at least 510 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now sir, what does that mean?
MR. PORTO: So an inclusion is basically when I look at the questioned DNA profile that was generated and I compare it to the known DNA profile, and if the characteristics of the known profile are consistent with the characteristics observed in the questioned DNA profile, that's an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as that number — 510 nonillion — how many zeros in that number?
MR. PORTO: So a nonillion is a one followed by 30 zeros.
MR. LALLY: Now, that profile in addition to Mr. O'Keefe's profile also had two unknown contributors. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, was that item also submitted to an outside vendor named Bode Technology for further analysis?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And with reference to your comparative analysis from the profile from this item to Mr. O'Keefe's profile, if you could again just expound upon — what does inclusion mean?
MR. PORTO: Yes. So an inclusion — I compared the known standard that I had available for use from John O'Keefe to the DNA profile generated from the tail light, and the DNA profile was consistent with the DNA profile that I observed in the questioned item, and that is what an inclusion means.
MR. LALLY: Now regarding item 3-6, what is the description of that item?
MR. PORTO: Yes. So 3-6 is a root end of hair from exterior passenger side rear handle.
MR. LALLY: And is that the same vehicle as far as the tail light sample?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now with respect to hair in general, there's a root end and a shaft end. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what limitations does your lab have with regard to DNA testing of hair?
MR. PORTO: So when we test hair, we're actually — the root end of the hair — we're looking at any potential skin cells that might be attached to the root end. So that's where the DNA that we're looking for is coming from.
MR. LALLY: Now, are you familiar with a term based on your training and experience known as autosomal DNA?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you describe for the jury what your understanding of that term is?
MR. PORTO: Yeah. So autosomal DNA is DNA that's located in the nucleus of the cell, and that's the DNA that we inherit from both mom and dad.
MR. LALLY: Now are you also familiar based on your training and experience with a term known as mitochondrial DNA?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Can you please explain to the jury what your understanding of the term mitochondrial DNA is?
MR. PORTO: Yeah. So mitochondrial DNA is DNA that's found in the mitochondria of a cell, and we inherit that from the mother.
MR. LALLY: It may be somewhat evident, but could you please explain to the jury the difference between autosomal DNA on the one hand and mitochondrial DNA on the other?
MR. PORTO: Yeah. So like I said, the autosomal DNA is the one that we have two copies of, where we inherit one from mom and one from dad, and then the mitochondrial DNA is a circular DNA that we just inherit from mom.
MR. LALLY: Now, is the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab equipped to perform mitochondrial DNA testing?
MR. PORTO: No, we're not.
MR. LALLY: Now, was the DNA extract from the hair also sent to that external vendor, Bode Technology, in Lorton, Virginia?
MR. PORTO: I'm not sure if the extract was sent, but I know that the shaft of the hair was sent to Bode.
MR. LALLY: Now, what testing did you perform on the hair?
MR. PORTO: I did the regular DNA analysis process on the root end of the hair, and that was done prior to it being shipped to that external vendor.
MR. LALLY: Is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what conclusions were you able to draw from the testing that you did on the hair?
MR. PORTO: Yes. So there was no human DNA detected and STR analysis was not performed.
MR. LALLY: Now, what does that mean, sir?
MR. PORTO: Yeah. So it means that I didn't detect any human DNA. So there might be DNA on there, but it was below what our instrumentation could detect.
MR. LALLY: Now turning your attention to item 3-2.1. What is the description related to that item?
MR. PORTO: Sir, it's a sample from the exterior of broken drinking glass.
MR. LALLY: And is there any further indication as far as the broken drinking glass as far as where it was recovered?
MR. PORTO: Oh, yeah. 34 Fairview Road.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to generate a DNA profile from this item, the drinking glass?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: And from your comparative analysis from this questioned item to that of the known standard of John O'Keefe, what did you conclude?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, so the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors, including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is at least 530 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. This supports an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: This is the last time I'll ask you this, but just if you could reiterate to the jury, what does an inclusion mean?
MR. PORTO: Yep. So an inclusion is when I compare the known standard to the questioned item, and if the profile in the known standard is consistent with the profile in the questioned profile, that's an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: And that number again — 530 nonillion — how many zeros again in that number?
MR. PORTO: That's a one followed by 30 zeros.
MR. LALLY: Now sir, if I could turn your attention to another item — 7-1.2.1. What is the description related to that item?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain A on upper right leg of jeans.
MR. LALLY: And is there any further indication as to whom those jeans belong to?
MR. PORTO: John O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: Now were you also able to generate a DNA profile from this item, the stain A on the upper right leg of Mr. O'Keefe's jeans.
MR. PORTO: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: And from your comparative analysis from the question item to that of the known standard of John O'Keefe, what did you conclude with reference to that item?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors, including male DNA. Contributor one is suitable for comparison, and due to limited information, contributors two and three are not suitable for comparison. The DNA profile from this item is at least 5,770 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir. Now turning your attention to item 7-1.3.1. What is the description related to that item?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain B on upper right leg of jeans.
MR. LALLY: And same jeans as the previous item?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, were you able to generate a DNA profile from this item, stain B on the upper right leg of the jeans of Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: And from your comparative analysis from this question item to that of the known standard of John O'Keefe, what did you conclude?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors, including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is at least 660 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, with reference to item 7-1.4.1—and again, these items with the dash and the point—is that what you're referring to earlier as the parent-child relationship between items?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what is the description for 7-1.4.1?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain C on upper right leg of jeans.
MR. LALLY: Now, were you able to generate a DNA profile from this item, from stain C on the upper right leg of Mr. O'Keefe's jeans?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: And from your comparative analysis of this question item, stain C, to that of the known standard of John O'Keefe, what did you conclude?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile is a mixture of at least two contributors, including male DNA. Contributor one is suitable for comparison. Due to limited information, contributor two is not suitable for comparison. The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors. The DNA profile from this item is at least 830 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, with reference to item 7-1.5, what was the description of that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain D on upper right leg of jeans.
MR. LALLY: Now, were you able to generate a DNA profile from this item, from stain D on the upper right leg of Mr. O'Keefe's jeans?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: And from your comparative analysis from this item to the known standard of John O'Keefe, what did you conclude?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors, including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is at least 670 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, did you also do some testing on an item 7-1.6.1?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: And what was the description associated with that item?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain E on upper right leg of jeans.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to generate a DNA profile from that item, stain E on the upper right leg of Mr. O'Keefe's jeans?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: And from your comparative analysis from that question item to the known standard of John O'Keefe, what did you conclude?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors, including male DNA. Contributor one is suitable for comparison. Due to limited information, contributor two is not suitable for comparison. The DNA profile from this item is at least 1.0 decillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: You used a different number there, as far as a decillion. How many zeros is a decillion?
MR. PORTO: A decillion is a one followed by 33 zeros.
MR. LALLY: Now, with each of those items that you just testified about as far as the jeans, the question items from the stains on Mr. O'Keefe's jeans—those were each located on the right leg. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, did you also perform some analysis on item 7-1.7.1?
MR. PORTO: I did.
MR. LALLY: And what is the description associated with that item number?
MR. PORTO: Sample from unstained areas of the exterior of jeans.
MR. LALLY: Now, were you able to generate a DNA profile from that item, from the unstained areas of the exterior of Mr. O'Keefe's jeans?
MR. PORTO: I was.
MR. LALLY: And from your comparative analysis from this question item to the known standard of John O'Keefe, what did you conclude?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of four contributors, including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is at least 53 septillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and three unknown individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: And again, sir, with that number as far as 53 septillion times more likely—how many zeros in a septillion?
MR. PORTO: A septillion is a one followed by 24 zeros.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could turn your attention to what's listed as number 12 in your report, item 7-18.4.1—did you do some testing on that item as well?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what was the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain C on top front of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And the gray long sleeve shirt—is that attributed as belonging to a specific person?
MR. PORTO: Yes, John O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to generate a DNA profile from that item, specifically sample from stain C on the top front of the gray long sleeve shirt of Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: And from your comparative analysis from that questioned item from the shirt to the known standard of John O'Keefe, what did you conclude?
MR. PORTO: The male DNA profile was interpreted as originating from a single contributor. The DNA profile from this item is at least 58 octillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe than if it originated from an unknown unrelated individual. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: And again, sir, that number as far as 58 octillion times more likely—how many zeros in an octillion?
MR. PORTO: An octillion is a one followed by 27 zeros.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could take you down to what's listed as 15 in your report—did you do some testing on item 7-18.14.1?
MR. PORTO: I did.
MR. LALLY: And what was the description associated with that item?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain L on back bottom right of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to generate a DNA profile from that item?
MR. PORTO: I was.
MR. LALLY: And from your comparative analysis with reference to that item, the sample from stain L on the back bottom right of the gray long sleeve shirt, in comparison to the DNA profile from the known standard of John O'Keefe—what did you conclude?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors, including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is at least 1.0 decillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, did you also perform some analysis on an item numbered 7-18.17.1?
MR. PORTO: I did.
MR. LALLY: And what was the description associated with that item, sir?
MR. PORTO: Sample from unstained areas of exterior of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And similarly, were you able to generate a DNA profile from that item, the sample from the unstained areas of the exterior of the gray long sleeve shirt of Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: I was.
MR. LALLY: And from your comparative analysis from that question item to that of the known standard of John O'Keefe, what did you conclude?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors, including male DNA. Contributor one is suitable for comparison. Due to limited information, contributor two is not suitable for comparison. The DNA profile from this item is at least 960 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir. I'm going to group—four separate items from your report. Starting with what's listed in your report as number nine, item 7-3.1. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what is the description associated with that item, sir?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain D on right instep of sneaker.
MR. LALLY: And eleven from your report—you also did some analysis on item 7-18.3.1. Is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what was the description associated with that?
MR. LALLY: And item 7-18.7.1—do you see that as well?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what was the description associated with that item?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain F on top front of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And lastly in this group, item 7-18.8.1—what was the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain G on back left sleeve of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to each of those last four samples from those items, were you able to generate a DNA profile from each of them? And what did you conclude based on the generation of those profiles with those four items?
MR. LALLY: And if you could explain briefly to the jury, when you say not suitable for comparison, what do you mean by that?
MR. PORTO: So for item 7-3.1, it was a mixture of at least five contributors, and at the DNA unit we validated — basically we tested and made sure that our protocols — we can only interpret mixtures of up to four contributors. So I determined that there were five contributors, so that makes it too complex for us to do comparisons to it. So it's not suitable for comparison for that reason. And the other three items, due to the quality of the profile, they were not suitable for comparison. And basically what that means is that there was such low amounts of DNA in the sample that there was a lack of information from the profiles themselves. So they weren't really suitable for comparisons.
MR. LALLY: And just to be clear, the item that you're referring to with the five possible contributors — that's a shoe. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could turn your attention in your report to what you have listed as number 10, there are a number of different items listed there. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct. And starting with item 7-17.2.1, what is the description associated with that? Sample from stain A on top front left of orange t-shirt.
MR. LALLY: And 7-17.3, what is the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain B on top front left of orange t-shirt.
MR. LALLY: And item 7-17.4.1. What is the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain C on top front left of orange t-shirt.
MR. LALLY: And item 7-17.5.1. What is the description associated with that item?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain D on front bottom right of orange t-shirt.
MR. LALLY: And item 7-17.6.1. What is the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain E on back left shoulder of orange t-shirt.
MR. LALLY: And so each of those respectively were samples taken from stains on the orange t-shirt of Mr. O'Keefe. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now turning your attention to item 7-18.2.1. What is the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain A on right sleeve of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And item 7-18.5.1. What is the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain D on center front of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And item 7-18.6.1. What is the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain E on center front of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And item 7-18.9, did you generate a profile from that item as well?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what is the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain H1 on back left of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And item 7-18.10.1, what is the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain H2 on back left of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And item 7-18.11.1, what is the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain I on back right shoulder of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And item 7-18.12.1, what is the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain J on back bottom right of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And lastly with this group, sir, item 7-18.13.1, what is the description associated with that?
MR. PORTO: Sample from stain K on back bottom right of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And so each of those items beginning with 7-18 were associated with various stains taken from various areas on the gray long sleeve shirt of Mr. O'Keefe. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to each of those areas of the orange t-shirt and the gray long sleeve shirt, were you able to generate a DNA profile from those items?
MR. PORTO: I was.
MR. LALLY: And from your comparative analysis of each of the DNA profiles from those items to the known standard of John O'Keefe, what did you conclude?
MR. PORTO: So the male DNA profile was interpreted as it originated from a single contributor. The DNA profile from these items is at least 490 octillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe than if it originated from an unknown unrelated individual. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now again, if you could just remind the jury — when you say single source contributor, what does that mean?
MR. PORTO: So a single source profile is a profile that has one contributor to it. So one person contributed DNA to that profile.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to the number, as far as 490 octillion times more likely — how many zeros are in that number?
MR. PORTO: So an octillion is a one followed by 27 zeros.
MR. LALLY: Now lastly, sir, did you perform any analysis with reference to items numbered 8-2 and 8-3?
MR. PORTO: I did.
MR. LALLY: And what were the descriptions respectively for items 8-2 and 8-3?
MR. PORTO: So item 8-2 was right-hand fingernail clippings from John O'Keefe, and item 8-3 were left-hand fingernail clippings from John O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: So fingernail clippings from both the right and left hand of Mr. O'Keefe. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to generate a DNA profile from those item numbers, the right and left hand fingernail clippings of Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: I was.
MR. LALLY: And based on your comparative analysis of the DNA profile from the right and left hand fingernail clippings of Mr. O'Keefe, taken in conjunction with the known standard of John O'Keefe, what did you conclude?
MR. PORTO: So the male DNA profile was interpreted as originated from a single contributor. And the DNA profile from these items is at least 490 octillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe than if it originated from an unknown unrelated individual. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: So with respect to each — the right and left hand fingernail clippings of Mr. O'Keefe — both of those were identified by your analysis as a single source contributor. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And they were each 490 octillion times more likely to have originated from John O'Keefe than from an unknown unrelated individual. Is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. Thank you, sir. I have nothing further.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: Good morning, sir.
MR. PORTO: Good morning.
MR. YANNETTI: Mr. Porto, I would like to start by asking you about item 3-1.1, which you've identified as a sample from the passenger side tail light of the vehicle. Can you orient yourself in your report to that item?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And that of course was the passenger side tail light that was attached to the vehicle. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: You were never asked to do any DNA comparison on any pieces of tail light connected with this case. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Let me check my other report. For tail light, there was another item that was item 2-3.1, which is sample from apparent glass on rear bumper, if that's what you're referencing.
MR. YANNETTI: So if I suggested to you that the tail light was plastic, that glass wouldn't have been the tail light. Correct?
MR. PORTO: I don't — that's beyond my scope of testing.
MR. YANNETTI: Gotcha. Okay. With regard to the passenger side tail light, you found that there were three contributors of DNA to that tail light attached to the vehicle. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: One of those contributors appeared to be John O'Keefe. Is that fair to say?
MR. PORTO: He was included into the profile.
MR. YANNETTI: With regard to the other two contributors, who were they?
MR. PORTO: They could be anybody.
MR. 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?
MR. PORTO: I was not.
MR. YANNETTI: Now, with regard to the broken drinking glass, which is item 3-2.1, do you see that in your report?
MR. PORTO: I do.
MR. YANNETTI: With regard to that, you came up with a DNA profile that also had three contributors. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: One of those contributors appeared to be John O'Keefe. Correct?
MR. PORTO: He was included. Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: Who were the other two contributors?
MR. PORTO: I don't know. They could be anybody.
MR. YANNETTI: Were you ever asked with regard to that broken drinking glass to compare the DNA profile that you analyzed with the DNA of either Boston police sergeant Brian Albert or ATF agent Brian Higgins?
MR. PORTO: I was not.
MR. YANNETTI: Now with regard to 7-1.2.1, that's the stain A from the upper right leg of the jeans. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: And you were aware, or you were told, that those were the jeans that John O'Keefe was wearing on the morning in question when he was found.
MR. PORTO: Based on the sample description, that's what it seems.
MR. YANNETTI: All right. And it turned out that his DNA was on his own jeans. Correct?
MR. PORTO: He was included in the profile.
MR. YANNETTI: And that was unsurprising to you. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: And with regard to that item, you found that there were three contributors of DNA. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: With John O'Keefe being one of them.
MR. PORTO: He was included in the profile. Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And who were the other two?
MR. PORTO: I don't know. They could be anybody.
MR. YANNETTI: Let's move on to stain B, also from the upper right leg of the jeans — that is 7-1.3.1. Do you see that in your report?
MR. PORTO: I do.
MR. YANNETTI: When you found a DNA profile, how many contributors of DNA were there?
MR. PORTO: Three contributors.
MR. YANNETTI: And again, this was John O'Keefe's jeans. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Based on the description, yes.
MR. YANNETTI: So he was one of the three contributors.
MR. PORTO: He was included in the profile. Yeah.
MR. YANNETTI: Who were the other two?
MR. PORTO: I don't know. They could be anybody.
MR. YANNETTI: Moving on to stain C from the upper right leg of the jeans, 7-1.4.1. Do you see that in your report?
MR. PORTO: I do.
MR. YANNETTI: With regard to the DNA profile that you analyzed there, how many contributors of DNA were there to that profile?
MR. PORTO: At least two. And it was interpreted as two contributors.
MR. YANNETTI: And again, this is the same pair of jeans that he was found in. Correct?
MR. PORTO: Based on the description, yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And you said at least two contributors — it actually could have been more than two.
MR. PORTO: Based on our protocols, I had to call it two, and we determined it as two, but it could be more than two. Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: Okay. Well, let's pay attention to the one that was not John O'Keefe. At least that one. Who contributed that DNA to his pants?
MR. PORTO: I don't know. It could be anybody.
MR. YANNETTI: Moving on to stain D, which is 7-1.5.1. And if I can just put my glasses on to make sure I've read my own writing correctly. Actually, is it 7-1.5.1? Did I get that wrong the first time? D, I'm sorry. Do you mean stain D?
MR. PORTO: Stain D.
MR. YANNETTI: Stain D is 7-1.5.1.
MR. PORTO: Oh, I had it right the first time.
MR. YANNETTI: Okay. With regard to that stain, you also got a DNA profile. And how many contributors were there to that DNA profile?
MR. PORTO: I interpreted as three contributors, and again, this is John O'Keefe's jeans.
MR. YANNETTI: Correct. He was one of the contributors to his own jeans.
MR. PORTO: Correct. He was included in the profile.
MR. YANNETTI: And with regard to that stain on the upper right leg of his jeans, who were the other two contributors of DNA to that stain?
MR. PORTO: I don't know. They could be anybody.
MR. YANNETTI: And then finally, with regard to that upper right leg of the jeans, there was also a stain E.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: How many contributors did you find to that DNA profile?
MR. PORTO: Two contributors.
MR. YANNETTI: One of which was John O'Keefe, to his own jeans.
MR. PORTO: He was included. Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: And who was the other contributor to that stain on the jeans?
MR. PORTO: It could be anybody. I don't know.
MR. YANNETTI: And by the way, just for the record, that was 7-1.6.1.
MR. PORTO: 7-1.6.1.
MR. YANNETTI: Thank you, sir. Now with regard to the unstained area of the exterior of the jeans, do you see item 7-1.7.1?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: You found a DNA profile with regard to that unstained area as well.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: How many contributors of DNA were there to that unstained area of the jeans?
MR. PORTO: I interpreted as four contributors, and John O'Keefe was one of those.
MR. YANNETTI: He was included in the profile. His own jeans, based on the description.
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: Who were the other three contributors to that DNA profile?
MR. PORTO: I don't know. It could be anybody.
MR. YANNETTI: And before we move on to the sneaker, I just wanted to ask you a question about the passenger side tail light that I neglected to ask you. That was the one where there were three contributors.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: And again, I'm going back to 3-1.1.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: Sorry to skip around, sir. I'm not trying to make this any more confusing than it is. With regard to the passenger side tail light and that DNA profile, are you able to determine when that DNA was deposited on the passenger side tail light that was attached to the vehicle?
MR. PORTO: No, I'm not.
MR. YANNETTI: Are you able to testify with any certainty that it was deposited there, say on January 28th or 29th of 2022?
MR. PORTO: No, I can't.
MR. YANNETTI: So consistent with your analysis of it, are you able to say whether it occurred prior to January 28th of 2022?
MR. PORTO: No, I can't.
MR. YANNETTI: Were you aware that that vehicle was John O'Keefe's girlfriend's vehicle?
MR. PORTO: No, I was not.
MR. YANNETTI: Were you provided any information about just how often he had been in and around that vehicle prior to January 28th of 2022? Moving on to 7-3.1, which was the right instep of the sneaker.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: You see that in your report?
MR. PORTO: Yep.
MR. YANNETTI: With regard to that particular stain, you noted how many contributors of DNA?
MR. PORTO: It was interpreted as at least five contributors.
MR. YANNETTI: And when you have interpreted as at least five contributors, what does that do to your ability to find out who contributed that DNA?
MR. PORTO: So based on our protocols, we're not able to do any comparisons to any mixtures that are five or more contributors. So it's not suitable for comparisons.
MR. YANNETTI: Which means that with regard to the sneaker at least, you couldn't even say whether John O'Keefe's DNA was on it.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: And with regard to all five, do you have any idea who contributed the DNA to that sneaker?
MR. PORTO: No, I don't.
MR. YANNETTI: Now moving on — I just have a couple more for you, sir. Moving on to what is labeled as stain L, which is 7-18.14.1, I believe. Do you see that in your report?
MR. PORTO: I do.
MR. YANNETTI: And that was a stain on the back bottom of his long sleeve shirt.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: And were you told that the long sleeve shirt was his outer clothing when he was found?
MR. PORTO: I don't believe so.
MR. YANNETTI: How many contributors to that stain on the back bottom of his long sleeve shirt did you find in that DNA profile?
MR. PORTO: I interpreted as two contributors.
MR. YANNETTI: And did you make any match with regard to either of those contributors or both?
MR. PORTO: I did comparisons and John O'Keefe was included as one of the contributors.
MR. YANNETTI: So John O'Keefe was a contributor of DNA to his own long sleeve shirt.
MR. PORTO: Correct, based on the descriptions.
MR. YANNETTI: And whose other DNA was on that shirt?
MR. PORTO: I don't know.
MR. YANNETTI: And then finally, with regard to 7-18.17.1, that was an unstained area of the exterior of that shirt.
MR. PORTO: Correct. That same long sleeve shirt.
MR. YANNETTI: Correct. And you tested that and got a DNA profile.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: How many contributors were there to that DNA profile?
MR. PORTO: I interpreted as two contributors.
MR. YANNETTI: Was John O'Keefe one of them?
MR. PORTO: He was included as one of the contributors.
MR. YANNETTI: So his DNA was found on his own shirt.
MR. PORTO: Correct, based on the description.
MR. YANNETTI: And who contributed the other DNA to John O'Keefe's shirt?
MR. PORTO: I don't know.
MR. YANNETTI: With regard to any of the stains on the upper right leg of the jeans, I counted one, two, three, four, five that you've discussed here today. Were you ever asked to compare the DNA profile with the DNA profiles of either Brian Higgins or Brian Albert?
MR. PORTO: I was not.
MR. YANNETTI: I'm sorry. And your answer was you were not?
MR. PORTO: I was not.
MR. YANNETTI: Did anybody ever provide you with DNA profiles of Brian Higgins or Brian Albert?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. YANNETTI: I may have one moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. YANNETTI: I just have one more question for you, Mr. Porto, and I do want to thank you for answering all my questions here today. You wrote reports on your analysis of all the items and the work that you did on this case.
MR. PORTO: I did.
MR. YANNETTI: And you are directed pursuant to protocol to address those reports to somebody.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. YANNETTI: Who was it that you sent the reports to in this case?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm sustaining the objection.
MR. YANNETTI: Did you send those reports to Michael Proctor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Jurors, strike the question.
MR. YANNETTI: I have nothing further. Thank you, sir.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Mr. Porto, based on your training and experience and years of doing DNA testing at the lab, when it comes to samples from items of clothing, is it uncommon or common to have multiple contributors?
MR. PORTO: That depends. It can happen, but it's possible. Yes.
MR. LALLY: Is it something that's a complete anomaly?
MR. PORTO: I wouldn't say so. No.
MR. LALLY: Now, turning your attention back to item 3-1.1. That's the sample from the passenger side tail light of the defendant's vehicle.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And Mr. O'Keefe's known DNA profile was found to be an inclusion for the DNA profile from the swab from the defendant's passenger side taillight.
MR. PORTO: Correct. He was included in the profile. Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what is the statistical number associated with that inclusion, sir?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile from this item is 510 nonillion times more likely to have originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals.
MR. LALLY: Now, Mr. Porto, if I could turn you back to number 10 in your report, there's a number of different items listed there.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the items listed associated with various stains on various areas of Mr. O'Keefe's orange t-shirt and gray long sleeve shirt, there's about 13 different DNA profiles that you generated in reference to those items.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And from those 13 different items, they're all from a single contributor. Is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct. They were interpreted as originated from a single contributor.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the DNA profile — your comparison of each of those 13 different stains on the orange t-shirt and the gray long sleeve shirt — what were your conclusions again as to your comparison with the known standard of John O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: Yes. So the profile was interpreted as originated from a single contributor and the DNA profile from these items is at least 490 octillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe than if it originated from an unknown unrelated individual. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: And lastly, with reference to the fingernail clippings from both the right hand and the left hand of Mr. O'Keefe, those were also — your analysis provided for inclusion of Mr. O'Keefe's known DNA standard.
MR. PORTO: He was included in the profile. Correct.
MR. LALLY: And again, the profile from both the right hand and the left hand fingernail clippings was a single source contributor.
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: How many sources were associated with those —
MR. YANNETTI: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Nothing further. You all set, Mr. Porto?
MR. PORTO: Yes, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you very much. Who is the next witness?