Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveChristina Hanley - Direct (Part 1)
167 linesMR. LALLY: I'm calling Miss Christina Hanley to the stand.
COURT CLERK: Excuse me. Step up. [unintelligible] [Garbled oath.] The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
MS. HANLEY: So help me.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good afternoon.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Lally, whenever you're ready.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. Good afternoon, ma'am.
MS. HANLEY: Good afternoon.
MR. LALLY: Could you please introduce yourself to the jury, spelling your last name for the court?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. I'm Christina Hanley. Hanley is H-A-N-L-E-Y.
MR. LALLY: And Miss Hanley, what do you do for
MR. LALLY: work?
MS. HANLEY: I am a forensic scientist three at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory in the Trace Arson and Explosives Unit.
MR. LALLY: And where did you go to school?
MS. HANLEY: I received my bachelor of science in chemistry with a concentration in forensics from [unintelligible] College.
MR. LALLY: And do you have any other degrees?
MS. HANLEY: I do not.
MR. LALLY: Now, following your education, where did you first go to work?
MS. HANLEY: I began working at the state police crime lab in 2008 in the drug identification unit. And in 2009, I transferred into the trace unit. And in 2017, I was promoted from a forensic scientist 2 to a forensic scientist 3 in the trace arson and explosives unit.
MR. LALLY: Could I ask you please to speak up please? Miss Hanley, if it helps, that microphone is adjustable, so if you could get it as close to you as possible, that would be great.
MS. HANLEY: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: The Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory where you work, is that accredited?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, it is.
MR. LALLY: And by whom?
MS. HANLEY: We are accredited by ANAB.
MR. LALLY: And what does ANAB stand for?
MS. HANLEY: ANAB stands for ANSI National Accreditation Board.
MR. LALLY: And what does ANSI stand for?
MS. HANLEY: Sorry, I can't remember exactly what ANSI stands for. I apologize.
MR. LALLY: That's okay. As part of that accreditation process, do you undergo any sort of proficiency testing?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury what that proficiency testing process consists of?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. Proficiency tests are a quality assurance measure that's used to monitor performance, and I'm required to complete at least one external proficiency test per year where I'm authorized to do casework in multiple subdisciplines in my unit. I typically complete more than one proficiency test per year.
MR. LALLY: And what areas do you specifically undergo proficiency testing in?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. I'm authorized to do casework in multiple subdisciplines in trace, so I complete proficiency tests in the subdisciplines of hairs, paint, fibers, glass, tape, and serial number restorations and physical match examinations.
MR. LALLY: And generally speaking, what is entailed in those proficiency tests that you're given multiple times a year?
MS. HANLEY: It's provided by an external company that provides the proficiency test, and I'm required to successfully complete one of those proficiency tests per year.
MR. LALLY: Now have you successfully completed each of those proficiency tests that you've taken?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I have.
MR. LALLY: Now what type of training or continuing education have you undergone at the state police crime laboratory?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. I had internal training as well as external training. The internal training consisted of required readings. I was required to complete some laboratory exercises, learn how to utilize the instrumentation in the lab. I observed other analysts in the unit working on casework. I was also required to complete a written exam as well as a competency test, and in addition to that a mock trial.
MR. LALLY: Now, you mentioned earlier in your testimony you're a forensic scientist three currently. Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And what is the difference — or can you explain the difference to the jury — between a forensic scientist 2 versus a forensic scientist 3?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. A forensic scientist 2 is essentially just like a bench chemist whose primary role or responsibility is casework. A forensic scientist 3 does casework but in addition is also a unit supervisor.
MR. LALLY: Now what does the trace unit do or examine within the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. I'm responsible for examining and comparing trace items, for example such as paint, glass, fibers, hairs, tape, miscellaneous items. I also perform serial number restorations on firearms and physical match examinations.
MR. LALLY: And what are your general duties and responsibilities within the trace unit within the lab?
MS. HANLEY: I am responsible for the general operation of the unit. I train other forensic scientists within the unit. I also complete technical and administrative reviews of casework and I also complete my own casework in the trace disciplines that I previously mentioned.
MR. LALLY: Now Miss Hanley, you as a supervisor, you review other analysts' work within the trace unit. Correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: And who reviews your work for any sort of trace analysis that you do?
MS. HANLEY: Depending on what the subdiscipline, some of the casework that I'm authorized to work in needs to be technically reviewed by an external technical reviewer, because I'm the only one within my unit that can do certain types of casework currently. So we have to utilize an external technical reviewer at this time.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to physical match analysis, can you explain to the jury first just in general terms, how is that analysis performed?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. When I receive an item, I take that item into my custody and I document it with photographs and I make observations and take notes, and then I'll examine the items microscopically and I will do any comparison work to determine if there is or is not a physical match between items.
MR. LALLY: Now, that physical match analysis within the trace unit of the state lab, is that general work supported by any sort of scientific principle or methodology that you're aware of?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Let me ask you this. Are you familiar with something called the Locard exchange principle?
MS. HANLEY: Yes. So the Locard exchange principle — it's kind of the foundation or basis of trace analysis. It is a principle that states that when two objects or two items come into contact with each other there is an exchange of material.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to your workspace, what is it that you do to your bench between your examination of separately packaged items?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. The benchtop as well as the tools that I'm going to use are all cleaned with a bleach solution. And once that's done, there's a clean piece of butcher paper that's put down on the bench, and that's done in between looking at different items.
MR. LALLY: And why is it that you do that in between looking at different items?
MS. HANLEY: That's done to prevent any cross-contamination.
MR. LALLY: Now, you've alluded a little bit earlier in your testimony, but on what types of evidence can you perform a physical match analysis?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. Physical match examination can be conducted with many different types of material, for example plastics, glass, tape, etc.
MR. LALLY: Now when evidence is submitted to your lab, how is it kept track of throughout its stay at the lab?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. When evidence is submitted to the laboratory, the case information is put into our LIMS system, which stands for laboratory information management system, and once it's assigned that number —
MR. LALLY: — how is it sort of tracked as it progresses through the different units within the lab?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. The unique case number that's assigned to the case is tracked within the system. It's referred to as the chain of custody. Items of evidence will get scanned depending on where their location is, and the LIMS system keeps track of all of that. So we know exactly where an item is.
MR. LALLY: So, when you take an item or you receive an item to be tested, can you explain to the jury what you do to begin your analysis?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. When an item gets scanned into my custody, after I've prepped my area to examine the item, I scan that item into my custody and I will document that item with photographs. I will make notes of my observations. I will examine the item microscopically. If needed, I'll proceed with sampling and possibly additional microscopic examination and instrumental analysis.
MR. LALLY: Now, specifically starting with items of glass, when you take an item of glass to conduct a comparative analysis, generally speaking, what is the process for conducting such an examination of glass?
MS. HANLEY: It would be the same process that I just mentioned. I would take that item, take photos, make any observations. I would proceed — first I would check to see if there's any physical match comparisons, and then if needed I would take any samples to examine it microscopically and/or instrumentally.
MR. LALLY: And that general process that you've just described — is that the process you followed with the items you tested or analyzed in reference to this case?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, what kind of instruments do you use? Starting with items of glass, what kind of instruments do you use to conduct that analysis?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. I'll use a stereo zoom microscope to initially examine it microscopically. If I take samples to do additional microscopic examination, I'll examine it under a polarized light microscope. And then if I need to take samples to do instrumental analysis, that would be using our — it's referred to as a GRIM, which stands for glass refractive index measurement. It's an instrument that measures the refractive index of glass.
MR. LALLY: And if you could please explain to the jury what is a refractive index.
MS. HANLEY: Sure. A refractive index is a measure of how light bends when it passes from one medium to another.
MR. LALLY: And how are you viewing that utilizing the GRIM device when it comes to glass?
MS. HANLEY: A sample is prepped on a slide and it is placed on a hot stage of the microscope of the instrument. And the oil that the sample is in goes through a cooling and a heating phase. And as it's going through a cooling and a heating phase, it passes through what we refer to as a match point. So you can make that observation as the sample is running, and then when the sample is done running it takes an average and it calculates the refractive index of the sample through the calibration data of the instrument.
MR. LALLY: And what is an FTIR?
MS. HANLEY: So an FTIR is a Fourier transform infrared spectrometer and it is an analytical tool that we use to analyze certain types of samples. Essentially a sample is exposed to infrared light and your sample reacts in a certain way to it and it produces a spectrum or a graph of peaks and valleys and it is representative of your sample.
MR. LALLY: And how is that FTIR instrument — how is that used in this type of physical match analysis?
MS. HANLEY: So actually the FTIR was not used for physical match examination.
MR. LALLY: Now you mentioned it a little bit earlier in your testimony. What is a polarized light microscope?
MS. HANLEY: So a polarized light microscope is a microscope that just has a couple of filters in it that we use to look at samples at higher magnification and makes observations of certain optical properties of samples.
MR. LALLY: And how are you utilizing that instrument in your analysis in the lab?
MS. HANLEY: So it's used to examine various different types of samples — paint, fiber, we can also look at glass.
MR. LALLY: Now do you document your work as you perform your analysis in the lab?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I do.
MR. LALLY: Now, Miss Hanley, at some point were you assigned to perform some work on a lab case number 22-02184 pertaining to this defendant, Karen Read?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: And what type of work were you assigned to do in this case?
MS. HANLEY: So I was given items for physical match comparison of some glass items as well as some instrumental analysis of the glass, and I was also given items for some items of plastic for comparison.
MR. LALLY: Now, starting with glass pieces, do you recall what item numbers you analyzed pertaining to the glass pieces?
MS. HANLEY: Yes. So I examined items 3-2, which was a clear glass cup with broken irregular edges. I was also given item 3-3, which was five pieces of clear glass with broken irregular edges from the bumper of the vehicle. And then I was also given item 7-12, which were clear glass pieces recovered from the road. And I was given also 7-14 which was a clear piece of glass recovered from the road.
MR. LALLY: And now if we could, Miss Hanley, just break those down sort of one by one. So starting with item 3-2, what was provided to you in reference to a description of what that item was?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. Item 3-2 was a clear glass cup with broken irregular edges and there was dirt debris on the exterior and interior of the cup.
MR. LALLY: Now, did you measure that item?
MS. HANLEY: I did.
MR. LALLY: And what measurements did you obtain from that item, the drinking glass?
MS. HANLEY: I just would need to refer to my report for measurements.
MR. LALLY: Okay, you can do that. You have your report right there. Go right ahead.
MS. HANLEY: Thanks. Thank you, your honor. So the diameter of the bottom of the glass cup was 2 and 3/4 inches and it measured approximately 2 and 1/2 inches in height.
MR. LALLY: And you mentioned that there was debris on both the interior and exterior of the drinking glass. Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, turning your attention to item 3-3. What was provided to you as a description of item 3-3?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So item 3-3 consisted of five pieces of clear glass all with broken irregular edges.
MR. LALLY: And was there anything provided in the description of where those five pieces of broken glass were located?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, they were recovered from the bumper of a vehicle.
MR. LALLY: And was there any identifying information provided to you as far as in reference to that vehicle?
MS. HANLEY: The only other description of the item is the license plate of the vehicle.
MR. LALLY: What was the license plate that was provided?
MS. HANLEY: So it was MA 3GC684.
MR. LALLY: And did you measure each of those respective items?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as — before we get to the measurements — Miss Hanley, when it comes to a lab item number, say 3-3, that has multiple pieces to it, how are each of those individual pieces then subsequently labeled?
MS. HANLEY: So sometimes we'll subsequently label them with a lettering system.
MR. LALLY: And as far as these particular pieces contained within item 3-3, the pieces of glass from the bumper of the defendant's vehicle, how were they labeled?
MS. HANLEY: So these were labeled A through E.
MR. LALLY: And with reference to the measurements, what measurements did you obtain from the pieces within item 3-3?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So I measured the largest and the smallest. The largest measured approximately 7/8 of an inch by 5/16 of an inch, and the smallest measured approximately 3/16 of an inch by 1/8 of an inch.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to the drinking glass, you examined that microscopically. Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: I did. Yes.
MR. LALLY: And with reference to these items from item 3-3 from the bumper, you examined those microscopically as well. Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And was there a particular piece from the pieces from the bumper that you did any additional examination of?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: And what instruments did you use, and in which piece?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So there was one piece — I sampled piece E that I had labeled as PC. I took a sample for examination under the polarized light microscope and a sample to analyze it instrumentally on the GRIM instrument.
MR. LALLY: Now turning your attention to item 7-12. What was provided to you as a description for item 7-12?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So item 7-12 consisted of five pieces of clear apparent plastic and nine pieces of clear apparent glass, all with broken irregular edges.
MR. LALLY: Now, the nine apparent pieces — well, let me ask you this first. As far as the description that you were provided, was there any description as far as where those items were recovered from?
MS. HANLEY: Yes. Those items were recovered from 34 Fairview Road.
MR. LALLY: And is it your understanding they were recovered from the street or the roadway outside of that residence?
MS. HANLEY: It just says recovered from 34 Fairview Road.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the nine pieces of clear apparent glass from item 7-12, were those similarly sublabeled as the previous item 3-3?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, I received those labeled with the lettering system. They were labeled A, B, C, D, E, F, I, K, and L.
MR. LALLY: And with reference to those nine pieces of glass, did you examine those microscopically as well?
MS. HANLEY: I did. Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, turning your attention to item 7-14. What were you provided with as far as a description of that item 7-14?
MS. HANLEY: So this item consisted of one piece of clear glass with broken irregular edges.
MR. LALLY: And similarly, was there any description provided as to where that item was recovered from?
MS. HANLEY: Yes, it was recovered from 34 Fairview Road as well.
MR. LALLY: And again, how many pieces were contained within that item, 7-14?
MS. HANLEY: 7-14 was just one piece of glass.
MR. LALLY: And did you measure that item as well?
MS. HANLEY: That item I do not have the measurement of. It was examined by a previous analyst within the unit. So that measurement was taken at that time.
MR. LALLY: And that other analyst would be [unintelligible]? Is that correct?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Okay. And as far as your examination of that item 7-14, what type of instruments did you use to examine 7-14?
MS. HANLEY: So I sampled 7-14 to examine it under the polarized light microscope as well as to analyze it instrumentally using the GRIM instrument.
MR. LALLY: Are you familiar with a term called a class characteristic?
MS. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Can you explain to the jury what that is?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So a class characteristic is when a material can be associated with a group of items that share characteristics.
MR. LALLY: And what is an individual characteristic?
MS. HANLEY: An individual characteristic is when a material can be related to a single source, such as a physical match.
MR. LALLY: And so what is the difference between a class characteristic versus an individual characteristic?
MS. HANLEY: So a class characteristic is that it can be associated with a group of items that share characteristics, versus an individual characteristic, which is more individualizing — it can be related to a single source, as in the case of a physical match.
MR. LALLY: And what is a physical match?
MS. HANLEY: So a physical match is if an item is broken and those pieces are compared to each other and their broken irregular edges fit back together — and they have a jigsaw fit, that would be considered a physical match.
MR. LALLY: Now, can you please explain to the jury the steps and the process that you undertook in your comparative analysis of items, specifically of glass, in this case?
MS. HANLEY: Sure. So I first did a comparison of all of the glass pieces and the glass cup that were recovered from the road. So those were items 3-2, 7-12, and 7-14. So I examined all of those to determine if there was a physical match between any of those items first. And there were, I believe, six pieces of glass from item 7-12 that fit mechanically to the cup that was also recovered from the road, item 3-2. After I completed that examination, I then did a comparison to see if there was a physical match to some of the — two of the glass pieces from the bumper. There were five total from the bumper; two of them I used for physical match comparison.
MS. HANLEY: And there was no physical match between those two pieces from the bumper, item 3-3, compared to the glass pieces and the cup that were recovered from the road. And then sampled, as I had mentioned earlier, one of the pieces from the bumper to do further microscopic and analytical analysis on, and did a comparison with one of the pieces from the road.
MR. LALLY: Can we have a sidebar for just a minute, please?
JUDGE CANNONE: So jurors, it's been a long day, so we're going to stop for the day. Hanley, I'm going to ask you to come back tomorrow a little bit later in the day. All right. So folks, we're going to stop for today. Please do not discuss this case with anyone. Don't do any independent research or investigation into the case. If you happen to see, hear or read anything about the case, please disregard it and watch your social media. Thank you. So, Miss Hanley. Okay. All right. To the court, please. No. Follow me. Goodbye. All right. You don't need me for anything, right? We're all set. We're all set. Thank you.