Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveDaniel Wolfe - Cross
1,009 linesMR. BRENNAN: Thank you, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Do we have the actual — okay, great. Yep. So, 216. Thank you. All right, Mr. Brennan.
MR. BRENNAN: Good afternoon, Dr. Wolfe.
DR. WOLFE: Good afternoon.
MR. BRENNAN: When you testified on direct, you shared with the jury some of the work that ARCCA does. Do you remember that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you had mentioned a couple of interesting things — that there had been some work with the Department of Defense.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: The work with the Department of Defense — was that during your time, or before you got there?
DR. WOLFE: That would have been prior to my employment.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. So when you were telling them about working with the Department of Defense, that really had nothing to do with you. That was ARCCA before you began working there.
DR. WOLFE: ARCCA as a whole. Yes. The work that we do.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Not you.
DR. WOLFE: I — as I said, I wasn't involved specifically in that project.
MR. BRENNAN: No. And you mentioned that you did some stuff — or the company does some things for the NHL.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't tell us much more about what you do. There are other things that ARCCA does as far as clients, right?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you share with us that you work for lawyers and law firms?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, we do.
MR. BRENNAN: And you do litigation, insurance companies?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Is there any reason why you highlighted the Department of Defense — that you don't do — and the NHL, but didn't share the rest of the stuff with us?
DR. WOLFE: That's just some of the prominent clients that we have.
MR. BRENNAN: I see. You provided us a CV, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And that's like a resume — tells us a little bit about your education experience. You get to highlight some of the things, your accomplishments.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You shared with us you've been the director of accident reconstruction at this company ARCCA since 2017.
DR. WOLFE: No, no — not since I started.
MR. BRENNAN: You started with ARCCA in 2017.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When did you become the director of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: I think that would have been in January of 2024.
MR. BRENNAN: So about a year and a half.
DR. WOLFE: About a year and a half ago. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you received your certification from ACTAR.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you pass the test on both parts the first time?
DR. WOLFE: I don't recall if — I think it was — I had to retake, I think, the practical section in the afternoon.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you recall. You would recall something like that, wouldn't you? Did you pass both parts on the first try?
DR. WOLFE: Like I said, I think it was the second part I had to retake.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, this is a pretty important test, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Not really.
MR. BRENNAN: It's your certification.
DR. WOLFE: It is, but much of the concepts that are covered in it are very elementary.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, not so elementary — you had a hard time with part of it, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Well, with respect to the portion that I had to retake, it's a practical exam where you have to reconstruct an accident. You have to determine approach angles, departure angles, and it can be very sensitive to those inputs. And unfortunately, if you mess up one of your first angles and you carry out that calculation, then the whole problem is graded wrong, even if you did all the math correct.
MR. BRENNAN: So we understand there's a multiple-choice question part.
DR. WOLFE: That's the easier part.
MR. BRENNAN: Correct. I don't know — it's easier, but there is a multiple-choice part. There's a more practical part where you actually have to go out in the field and do a session, kind of like things that you did today. You don't go out into the field.
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: When did you first take that second part of the test?
DR. WOLFE: I don't recall.
MR. BRENNAN: You don't remember when you took the test?
DR. WOLFE: No, I don't.
MR. BRENNAN: Suffice to say, you took it again.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And ultimately, you passed both sections of that test.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: In your CV, you list your schooling and you list your degrees, don't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You mentioned some of the things that you focused on in your academic experience, don't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you have publications, correct? Recently you did a publication regarding vehicle control history on Toyotas.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Vehicle control history is data that is stored in a vehicle.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And Toyota owns Lexus.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: So you have familiarity with vehicle control history. In fact, you have a publication on it.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: In your entire resume, you only mention pedestrian collisions — or that you're involved in pedestrian type events — three times. Is there anything specific in your resume or your publications that shows a published accomplishment, for example, in pedestrian collisions? Do you have any publications that have been peer-reviewed or published in that area?
DR. WOLFE: No, I don't have any publications in pedestrians.
MR. BRENNAN: You write — or you note — areas of specialty and you list a bunch. Accident reconstruction, human factors, EDR, commercial vehicle, HVEDR, pedestrian bicycle accidents, nighttime visibility, and a number of others.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Is there anywhere in your resume that notes particular classes that you've attended and completed regarding pedestrian collisions?
DR. WOLFE: No, I haven't taken any classes in that.
MR. BRENNAN: You haven't taken any classes on pedestrian collisions?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever taught regarding pedestrian collisions?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever been a speaker in a presentation about pedestrian collisions?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Is that listed in your resume?
DR. WOLFE: I don't list lectures or presentations.
MR. BRENNAN: No. You were asked questions about your involvement in this case.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you had shared with us that at the beginning you were working for a separate party — or a third party, you said.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Another agency.
DR. WOLFE: Another agency.
MR. BRENNAN: And at some point you came into court and testified last year.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And during the time before you came in and testified, you weren't wholly independent of the defense, were you?
DR. WOLFE: Well, certainly before all of our testing — at the point at which we did all of our testing, report and analysis, as I mentioned on direct, I didn't know the Commonwealth or the defense in this case.
MR. BRENNAN: My question, more precisely — before you testified, before you came into court and gave your testimony, you weren't totally independent from the defense, were you?
DR. WOLFE: No. Oh, I mean — I had to communicate with them to be able to determine when to appear for testimony.
MR. BRENNAN: So you were communicating with them?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And in fact, some of the time that you spent — ARCCA actually billed the defense, and they paid that bill, didn't they?
DR. WOLFE: Eventually after the trial. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: During that time, you know what a sequestration order is, don't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you think that you're under a sequestration order today?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you talk to anybody about any of the prior testimony in this case before today?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: How'd you get here today?
DR. WOLFE: How did I get here today? I took a car ride over from the hotel.
MR. BRENNAN: Who drove you?
DR. WOLFE: It was a driver. I don't know his name.
MR. BRENNAN: Who set up the car?
DR. WOLFE: It would have been someone on the defense team.
MR. BRENNAN: Was it like — was it a limo?
DR. WOLFE: It was an SUV.
MR. BRENNAN: Was there anybody from the defense with you on the ride?
DR. WOLFE: There were three young ladies in the back seat. I think they might have been interns. And Mr. Woll —
MR. BRENNAN: And who?
DR. WOLFE: Mr. — Mr. Woll, I think. Is that how it's pronounced? Am I saying it wrong?
MR. BRENNAN: Have you discussed anything about this case before your testimony today, as far as the trial before today?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Have you discussed anybody's testimony in this case?
DR. WOLFE: Nobody's testimony. No.
MR. BRENNAN: That was different last year, though — because before you testified last year, you did have discussions about testimony, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Not with the Commonwealth or the defense. No.
MR. BRENNAN: But I'm asking — you did have discussions about testimony before you testified last year, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you know what a sequestration order is, don't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: After you testified last year, the court ordered you to provide all of your text messages, all your communications with the defense, didn't they?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, earlier this year.
MR. BRENNAN: And when you were ordered to provide all of the actual verbatim communications with the defense, did you provide those communications?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, all of the records that I had at the time I provided.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, not the records. You know what I'm getting at. Did you provide the communications?
DR. WOLFE: I provided everything I had in my possession.
MR. BRENNAN: Sir, a text message isn't just a time and date — there's actually substance when you text somebody, isn't there?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And when you were texting, how many texts do you think you had?
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, I think it was around 50 texts that I sent. It wasn't 100.
MR. BRENNAN: You think it was 50?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think it was around 100 total in terms of back and forth, but I think 50 that I sent — during those texts, communications, conversations.
MR. BRENNAN: Correct.
DR. WOLFE: About logistics.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Did you provide the content of those text messages when you were ordered to by the court?
DR. WOLFE: Well, those text messages spanned from — I guess it would have been April or so of 2024 through May to June of 2024. Ultimately, I think I received the court's order in May of this year, April of this year. So it was a year after the fact, and I had already deleted the texts at that point.
MR. BRENNAN: How many of those text messages did you delete?
DR. WOLFE: I just swiped the conversation. So it would have been the whole conversation.
MR. BRENNAN: Not how you did it. How many of those hundred or so text messages did you delete?
DR. WOLFE: Sorry. It would have been the whole text chain. I didn't individually delete them. It's just when you swipe it, it deletes the text chain.
MR. BRENNAN: After you deleted them, did you go into the recently deleted and then delete them so they were unavailable?
DR. WOLFE: I don't recall doing that.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you were asked to search your records of the text messages. Did you do a thorough search to see if you still had them or whether you had destroyed them all?
DR. WOLFE: I checked my phone and I also checked with my phone carrier.
MR. BRENNAN: So, do you know if they were still under the recently deleted part of your phone or did you go and take that extra step and totally destroy them?
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, I did not find any of the text messages. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Is there any reason why you deleted all of your text communications with the defense?
DR. WOLFE: Well, it's something that I routinely do. I work with attorneys and clients all the time, whether it's appearing for trial or inspections, and I don't have a habit of keeping a text chain that talks about logistics and things. It's just I routinely delete them after that communication was over with. And certainly after the prior proceeding, once it had concluded, there was no reason for me to preserve those.
MR. BRENNAN: And so at some point, you switched from text messages to another form of communication, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, earlier this year.
MR. BRENNAN: Tell us a little bit about this new form of communication.
DR. WOLFE: So Mr. Jackson had indicated that he and his defense team utilize an application known as Signal for their communications amongst their defense team. Ultimately asked if I would also use that application to communicate, which I agreed to.
MR. BRENNAN: Is Signal an encrypted app?
DR. WOLFE: It's a secure encrypted app. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: It doesn't leave any records, right?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe so. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you have it, you're using it. Do you have any records from your Signal use?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow that.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you have any records from your Signal use?
DR. WOLFE: I do not. No.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you know full well that Signal is an encrypted app that leaves no record.
DR. WOLFE: There may be a setting that you can change. I just know that the way that it was set up, there was no record.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, who set yours up to have no record?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know. I think it was default.
MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever checked your Signal app to see if you have any record of your communications pursuant to that court order?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I don't have the application anymore, but at the time I did check the application.
MR. BRENNAN: Out of all these clients that you've had, how many — or how many clients — would you use Signal with?
DR. WOLFE: This was the first time.
MR. BRENNAN: Have you used it since with other clients?
DR. WOLFE: Not yet. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Before you testified at the last proceeding — or should I say, when you testified at the last proceeding, kind of like today — you attempted to portray yourself as totally independent, didn't you?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. BRENNAN: When you testified at the prior proceeding, did you attempt to portray yourself as totally independent?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: The truth is, before you testified, you were communicating with the defense and attempting the best you could to assist their cause, weren't you?
DR. WOLFE: I wouldn't characterize it that way.
MR. BRENNAN: So before you testified, you wrote out questions that you thought could help — that you should be asked when you testify. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. So, something I routinely do before testifying is prepare an outline of topics and questions that would best help me get out my opinions and the analysis I undertook, ultimately so that you all have an understanding of what I did.
MR. BRENNAN: So I'm asking you a question. You gave the explanation, but you're skipping over the answer to my question. So I'll ask you again. Before you testify, did you write out a list of questions that you wanted to be asked?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And when you listed out the questions, you also listed out the answers, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: A general response. It wouldn't be verbatim to that.
MR. BRENNAN: I didn't say verbatim — because you listed out the answers to each and every one of the questions that you had prepared.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: So for every question there is an answer that you provided, so that you could follow a script, so to speak.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. I wouldn't characterize it as a script.
MR. BRENNAN: One of the questions asks, "So, not being able to inspect vehicles is something that is not uncommon in your line of work." And you answered, "Absolutely not." Remember writing that out?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you put a footnote, a comment, and you said, "Not sure if you want to put this somewhere in the direct examination. I have a feeling they are going to argue I didn't personally inspect the vehicles. I had enough information from the material. [unintelligible] So, it wasn't necessary. Need to show the jury it doesn't matter in this case." Did you write that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When you're talking about "they" — "I have a feeling they are going to argue I didn't personally inspect the vehicle" — who's "they"?
DR. WOLFE: That'd be the Commonwealth.
MR. BRENNAN: And so, when you were writing out these questions — as is your routine with the answers — is this the mark of independence to you?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think, again, whether the Commonwealth asked me that question or the defense asked me that question, my response would be the same. It wouldn't change depending on who called me to testify. There are a number of cases where, by the time I get involved, the evidence is gone from the roadway, the vehicle is gone. So, it's certainly not necessary to inspect a vehicle. And I wanted the jury to have an understanding that because I didn't physically inspect the vehicle, it didn't affect my analysis in the case.
MR. BRENNAN: So you think that showed independence?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Then you also had another question. "Would it be fair to say that because you do a lot of nighttime visibility work, your cases frequently involve pedestrians?" Remember that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you said yes. "Unfortunately, there is a direct correlation between time of day and pedestrian fatalities." Is that true?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And do they happen more often in the day or at night?
DR. WOLFE: More often at night, yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Statistically speaking, by the way, this case involves night, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: "Statistically speaking, most pedestrian fatalities occur during the evening and night hours. So, my specialty in the area of lighting and human factors results in a lot of my cases involving pedestrians." Did you write that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: In fact, you testified — you shared that with the jury, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. I've testified to that twice, last year as well as this year.
MR. BRENNAN: And in the notes that you wrote, when you shared it last year and this year, was it an important point for the jury?
DR. WOLFE: I think so, because it helped give them an understanding of my background and lighting and human factors. And as I mentioned earlier today, there's a direct correlation between time of day and pedestrian impacts, right? So my specialty in lighting and human factors results in me seeing many, many different types of pedestrian impacts.
MR. BRENNAN: So if it's important, why did you include a note — "If you don't want me to say this, that's fine." Why did you include a note to the defense that if they didn't want you to say something that you thought was important, you would leave it out?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think because I didn't want to confuse the jury about a statistic — that just because we have inclement weather and dark lighting conditions, it doesn't automatically equal a pedestrian impact, right? You have to look at the evidence and the damage to the vehicle and the injuries to determine whether or not a collision occurred, not the visibility.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you weren't trying to mislead the jury. You were trying to help them because they wouldn't understand something that you were trying to explain. Is that the way you're phrasing this?
DR. WOLFE: I think at the end of the day, it was to help them understand my background, how it relates to seeing a lot of pedestrian impacts.
MR. BRENNAN: Something is important — it helps the jury get to the truth. Why would you want to leave it out?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I didn't leave it out.
MR. BRENNAN: No, but you offered to. You would have if they requested it. Why did you invite — excuse me — why did you invite somebody else to interject in your independence and guide you to leave something out? Why would you even provide that information to them?
DR. WOLFE: Again, it's because I didn't want them to get hung up on a statistic — that just because we have more pedestrian impacts at night and in bad weather, that this alleged incident happened at night under bad weather, to give more weight to the evidence because of that statistic.
MR. BRENNAN: You done?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: If you make a mistake in court under oath, would you take the affirmative step on your own and correct that mistake?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
DR. WOLFE: I would do my best to do that. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, when you say do your best, would you do that if you became aware of it?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Before you testified in the proceeding last year, there was a hearing that you testified in front of her honor and other people that were here. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: I wasn't here.
DR. WOLFE: No, you were. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you testified about your experience, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When you were sharing your experience with the court, it was important for the court to have an accurate understanding of what your experience was because it was being evaluated in that hearing, wasn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: When you testified to the court, you testified that you had been qualified as an expert to testify over 20 times, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: I don't have the transcript. I believe I said approximately 20 times.
MR. BRENNAN: The reality is you've only testified and been qualified 11 times at that point. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: I misunderstood the question. And I thought it also encompassed depositions. So I added those two and approximated at 20.
MR. BRENNAN: And at some point when you realized you had made a mistake in your testimony to the court, you had a chance to come back when you testified last year and fix it and clarify the record, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Which is why I provided a comment with the specific breakdown for clarification.
MR. BRENNAN: When you came back and testified under oath the second time on the record under oath, did you clarify and fix the mistaken testimony that you had provided just days earlier?
DR. WOLFE: I don't recall being asked the question.
MR. BRENNAN: No, it wasn't whether you were being asked. The question is, did you take the affirmative step to fix the misstatements under oath that you made? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. BRENNAN: After your first testimony, you appreciated that you made a statement under oath that was wrong, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: In fact, you made a note.
DR. WOLFE: I realized in my testimony I said about 20 times when you asked me how many times I've been qualified. I misinterpreted your question, which is my fault, but I'm looking at my D-N list. It's 11 trials, seven depositions, 18 testimonies total. Not sure if you want to clear it up or just leave it.
MR. BRENNAN: Correct.
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: You just leave it.
DR. WOLFE: I'm not responsible for asking the question, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Have you ever heard the term confirmation bias?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you know what confirmation bias is generally?
DR. WOLFE: Generally, yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you think that you suffer from any confirmation bias in this case?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you have any close family that supports one side over the other? Not the facts or the data, but one side over the other?
DR. WOLFE: Not that I'm aware of. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Wife?
DR. WOLFE: My wife.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes.
DR. WOLFE: I don't really know what her thoughts are on the case.
MR. BRENNAN: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Look at that document. Have you seen that before?
DR. WOLFE: No, I have not.
MR. BRENNAN: You haven't seen that?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: You're unaware of anything that may influence you to lean one way or another?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: When you first took a look at some of the facts in this case, you had some information. Since then, you've received a lot more, haven't you?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Part of your testimony today to this jury was to provide opinions that you do not think that the holes in Mr. O'Keefe's clothes are consistent with some type of collision. Is that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: In coming to that opinion, you relied on some of your testing that we saw in those videos, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And that testing involves a Hybrid III arm, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: A Hybrid III arm is an arm from a crash dummy?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. That's not the technical name, but that's what it's often referred to.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. And you and Dr. Rentschler have been working together on this case, haven't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You've discussed ideas and shared thoughts?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: In fact, you've worked so intimately together, you know some of the things he's going to testify if he comes to testify — you've said that many times today, right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And so some of the data that you've shared and some of the opinions overlap with each other, wouldn't you say?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. He's going to rely on a lot of that test data. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When you were forming your opinion about holes in clothes and potential abrasions to somebody's skin, all of those tests that you did were using a crash test dummy arm, weren't they?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: In your report, you cite — or Dr. Rentschler cites — three different sources regarding testing, clothing, and skin. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not sure.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, haven't you read his report?
DR. WOLFE: I've skimmed it, but I don't know what the bases are for his opinions.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you see footnotes 24, 25, 26 — 24 being skin tissue cuttability and its relation to lacerations, severity indices? Did you read that?
JUDGE CANNONE: Let's see if there's a foundation.
DR. WOLFE: No, I didn't read that reference.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you read 25, the book that is cited — forensic pathology, second edition?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to have you come to sidebar.
MR. BRENNAN: Let me again ask you about this book that is cited in Dr. Rentschler's report. By the way, have you read Dr. Rentschler's report?
DR. WOLFE: As I mentioned, I skimmed through it.
MR. BRENNAN: So, in all of your preparation with Dr. Rentschler, you merely skimmed through his report. You didn't take time to read and study it.
DR. WOLFE: Well, none of my opinions are based on work that he did. He's undertaking a completely separate aspect in the analysis. But that's not the question. The question I asked you was: did you, in working closely with him, take the time to study his report? As I mentioned, I skimmed — I didn't read through, as you mentioned, all the references or what he cited. I didn't do that.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you read his report?
DR. WOLFE: I did read the report. Yes. But I didn't in depth go through each reference and look at what he was citing.
MR. BRENNAN: So you read his report?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And when you read his report, did you see there were footnotes for a number of different propositions that he made?
DR. WOLFE: I know that there were footnotes in the report. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, on the issue of whether or not crash test dummies should be used during experiments as a basis for an opinion of whether abrasions can happen through cloth or on an arm, wouldn't that particularly interest you since you were going to come here and testify about it multiple times in front of this jury?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not sure I understand your question.
MR. BRENNAN: You knew you were going to come in here and suggest to the jury that you thought that these tests were inconsistent with causing any type of holes in clothing similar to Mr. O'Keefe's or abrasions on his arm. You knew that was going to be part of your opinion today.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: As part of forming a valid opinion that people can rely upon, wouldn't you want to do as much study as possible on the background for that opinion before you give it to a jury?
DR. WOLFE: I suppose. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you suppose. Don't you think if you come in here as an expert, the jury is relying on your background and education?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Don't you think — and they're relying on the fact that you're representing something definitively or with an opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty. You understand that, right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And don't you think when you do that, it's important that you have proper study and foundation before you just come into court and give an opinion?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I will note that the ATD crash dummy is a generally accepted test device to use for not only assessing occupant forces in motor vehicle crashes, but also to assess impact forces. So the use of that device is certainly generally accepted.
MR. BRENNAN: When you get uncomfortable with my question, you generally tend to answer a different question.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Sustained. Mr. Brennan, next question.
MR. BRENNAN: Strike that. Let me ask you again. Don't you think as an expert, it's important when you come in and you're going to present an opinion based on science or engineering or whatever you want to do, that you study the basis for that opinion before you give it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When you saw in Dr. Rentschler's report references to this very issue about what should be used when you're doing demonstration or study of what can cause tears to clothing — weren't you interested in the basis of those opinions?
DR. WOLFE: Well, again, it was something where Dr. Rentschler and I worked together and we were in agreement that we could utilize the ATD arm clothed.
MR. BRENNAN: When you decided to have an agreement that you can use that arm, did you read the book that he cites as support? Forensic Pathology, second edition, Vincent J. DiMaio. Did you read it?
DR. WOLFE: No, I did not.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you brief it?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you peruse through it at all?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: When you decided to come to this agreement that's going to have a foundation for your opinions, did you look at footnote 26 — "Understanding the acute skin injury mechanism caused by player surface contact during soccer, a survey and systematic review?" Did you review that?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Have you seen any articles that support the proposition that a Hybrid III arm of a crash test dummy is appropriate to use when you're trying to provide a foundation for an opinion about whether or not tears can happen to clothing or abrasions to skin? Do you have any support for that in your report?
DR. WOLFE: Well, again, Dr. Rentschler is going to be addressing the —
MR. BRENNAN: You're shaking your head.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to let him answer the question.
DR. WOLFE: So, as I mentioned, Dr. Rentschler is assessing the injuries to the arm. Okay. He indicated to me that we could utilize the hybrid arm to assess the injuries to the arm.
MR. BRENNAN: So you have no independent experience or research or knowledge. Not Dr. Rentschler. You don't have any independent research or science or knowledge to support your idea, your theory, your opinion to this jury about the tears to the clothes and the skin?
DR. WOLFE: I was relaying the observations from the testing that we conducted with the ATD. Ultimately, like I said, Dr. Rentschler — it's my understanding that he will testify to the abrasions or the lacerations to the arm.
MR. BRENNAN: You gave multiple opinions about this, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: I'll ask you one more time — I'll ask it this way. Name — other than someone called Dr. Rentschler — name the papers, the studies, the treatises. Name the resource material you relied on as the basis for those opinions, that a Hybrid III arm can be used in these type of demonstrations as a basis for that type of thing.
DR. WOLFE: I certainly — ATD crash test dummies can be used for impact testing. Yes, impact testing.
MR. BRENNAN: You're talking about tears to clothes, abrasions to skin, and I'm asking you for a third time. Name one journal, one paper, one study that supports your proposition that you're relying on as the basis of your opinion in front of this jury today. Name one.
DR. WOLFE: I did not cite any in my report.
MR. BRENNAN: No. Can you think of one that you didn't cite?
DR. WOLFE: Not that I'm aware of. No.
MR. BRENNAN: You had mentioned on direct examination that when you first started looking at material some time ago, at the beginning you were unconstrained in the scope of your study. Is that fair to say? Are we talking about 2023?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, we are.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Yes. You were unconstrained. You could have done anything you wanted to.
DR. WOLFE: I don't know about "anything."
MR. BRENNAN: When you said unconstrained, what did that mean?
DR. WOLFE: Well, the agency that retained us didn't ask us to do specific work, per se, or specific tests.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't do any type of crash test at that time, did you?
DR. WOLFE: Not like what was demonstrated today.
MR. BRENNAN: No. Instead, you started a working theory that perhaps a glass was thrown at the rear tail light of the defendant's car.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did someone suggest to you that was a theory?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: It's just something that you and Dr. Rentschler thought up together based on the evidence that you had.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When you thought up that as a potential theory, that's why you built the potato cannon. The pressurized cannon.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Pressurized cannon. And you...
MR. BRENNAN: Shot a glass at the rear tail light.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. You determined that at 37 mph there'd be similar damage.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And then you came into court last year, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you provided that opinion of consistency to the jury, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You got up and you said something to the effect that that speed is consistent with the damage.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Now, when you gave that theory last year to the jury, did you know about other evidence in this case? For example, if a glass was thrown at the back of the car, how would the bottom of the glass bounce off the car and land near Mr. O'Keefe's body? Let me ask it differently. Did you gave multiple opinions about this, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: I'll ask you — I'll ask it this way. Did you... consider — when you came in last year and opined, gave your theory about a glass being thrown at the tail light being consistently damaged — did you think about how, if the glass hit that very tail light, the bottom would have bounced off the vehicle wherever it was and landed near there?
DR. WOLFE: I'm aware that it was found near his body.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Knowing that it was found near his body. You knew his body was about seven or eight feet off the road, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Knowing the bottom of the glass — the broken glass — was found near his body, 7 to 8 feet off the road. Did you consider if somebody threw a glass and broke that tail light, how the bottom of the glass would bounce... with him to where his body ended up?
DR. WOLFE: No, I did not analyze that part of it.
MR. BRENNAN: If a glass was thrown and bounced off that car, did you consider how it traveled from the car?
DR. WOLFE: No, I did not evaluate that.
MR. BRENNAN: If a glass was thrown at the car and broke the tail light, did you consider how the debris field would end up on the lawn?
DR. WOLFE: Well, it's my understanding — I think that there were plows that came through that night. So, I don't know that where the debris field was eventually found is where it would have been at some point earlier.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever talk to Lieutenant O'Hara or anybody from state police to see if all the way to the side... of the yard, or just down the middle?
DR. WOLFE: No, I did not.
MR. BRENNAN: So, did you give any careful consideration to — if the glass was thrown and hit the back of that tail light — how there would be a debris field on the front lawn of somebody's yard?
DR. WOLFE: I don't think that was a part of our scope. It was more or less to determine whether or not, if the tail light was impacted by a projectile like a glass, could you get generally consistent damage to that tail light. That was the objective of the test.
MR. BRENNAN: So, when you came in and testified last time, you weren't considering all of the other evidence that may not support that theory, were you?
DR. WOLFE: I think our objective was to determine whether or not the damage was consistent with an interaction with Mr. John O'Keefe and could there be another mechanism to cause the tail light to break.
MR. BRENNAN: Is there a reason why you were backing off that opinion on direct examination today?
MR. JACKSON: Objection. Insisting.
MR. BRENNAN: You weren't fully embracing that theory today, were you?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow that.
DR. WOLFE: I don't know if I agree with that.
MR. BRENNAN: In this case, you provided reports recently.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When did you provide your report? Was it April 6th? April 6th or was it May 6th?
DR. WOLFE: I think it's May 7th if I'm not mistaken.
MR. BRENNAN: May. So you provided a report May 7th.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And do you know when this trial started?
DR. WOLFE: Early April.
MR. BRENNAN: You provided your PowerPoint. When did you provide your PowerPoint?
DR. WOLFE: I think it would have been Thursday of this week. Well, it wasn't last week. Sorry. Maybe Wednesday. Wednesday or Thursday.
MR. BRENNAN: Wednesday. Is that fair?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: In looking at pedestrian accidents, it's important to try, if you can, to understand the exact positioning of the body, isn't... it?
DR. WOLFE: If a collision occurred, yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And if a collision occurred, you can't always identify the exact position of the body, can you?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Often times it can be very difficult.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You would want to know, if it is a collision between a car and a pedestrian, whether the person was fully impacted or it was a clipping type incident. Wouldn't you want to know that if you could?
DR. WOLFE: That would certainly affect the trajectory.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. And you would want to know if you could the body posture, whether the person was standing up straight or crouching if a collision occurred.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Whether they were turning or standing straight or they had their arm out. That's... helpful information, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: It can be. But when we're talking about how quickly this impact duration is — right, if you recall back to the PowerPoint, right — we're talking about a 10 millisecond window. So, however the body is positioned at contact, that's how it's positioned. It's not going to be able to have any significant movement or change in orientation in that 10 millisecond window.
MR. BRENNAN: The position of the body can change the trajectory of the person who's hit, can't it?
DR. WOLFE: Sorry, can you repeat the question?
MR. BRENNAN: Positioning of the body, the way they're positioned — that can change the trajectory if they're hit. After they... hit.
DR. WOLFE: It can. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Whether they're moving towards the vehicle or away from it could affect the trajectory, if they have some relative velocity.
DR. WOLFE: Yeah.
MR. BRENNAN: Trying to determine the point of impact when you're looking at a scene — it's important when you do trajectory studies to know where the point of impact is.
DR. WOLFE: If you're going to utilize studies that look at projection of pedestrians when you're contacted at the center of gravity and you get projected some distance, you can rely on those studies, but you have to have an understanding of where the point of impact is and where the point of rest is.
MR. BRENNAN: If you don't have the point of... impact. If you don't know the point of impact, you don't know the exact body position. That creates variables in your study, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Well, for those studies, they're not applicable when you are contacting, for instance, just a limb, or you don't have a center of gravity hit. Those — when you're talking about how far will a pedestrian get projected, if it's like a forward projection or what's known as a wrap projection where the pedestrian wraps onto the hood and then becomes decoupled — those studies are applicable there. But when you're talking about where there's minimal... overlap between the body and the center of gravity, then you can't utilize those studies.
MR. BRENNAN: So you would not want to know where the point of impact is in this particular case.
DR. WOLFE: No, I don't think it would be helpful.
MR. BRENNAN: You would not want to know the body position.
DR. WOLFE: I don't think that it would be helpful in determining — because again, we have to start with: does the damage, is it consistent with the collision.
MR. BRENNAN: So you would not want to know the body position. That's what you're telling us. You don't want to know that.
DR. WOLFE: Well, if the evidence indicates that the contact is inconsistent, then that's... kind of where the reconstruction stops. You can't go to a point of impact and a point of arrest if there was no contact.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you don't want to know the body position.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Can you answer that?
DR. WOLFE: I don't understand this question, your honor.
MR. BRENNAN: When you're doing studies, you don't want to know the body position.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Can you answer that, Dr. Wolfe?
DR. WOLFE: Again, it depends on the type of impact for the alleged contact. In this case, you can't rely on those studies about impact location and point of rest. They're not applicable to this. That's talking about studies as far as data information.
MR. BRENNAN: You, as the person... doing tests, would you want to know the body positioning? And this time we'll get an answer and that'll be it.
JUDGE CANNONE: We got an answer every single time. Can you answer that, Dr. Wolfe?
DR. WOLFE: I feel like I've answered it the best I can, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, next question.
MR. BRENNAN: You don't like that question?
JUDGE CANNONE: Strike. Disregard. Okay.
MR. BRENNAN: When you were doing these video demonstrations, was it important to be as accurate as possible?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Data changes if information changes, right?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not sure I understand the question.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's a tough question.
MR. BRENNAN: You want to be as precise as you can in ultimately having a conclusion regarding data, don't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Could I have... PowerPoint page 12, please? Now look at force on the bottom. The first letter F signifies force.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And the last two letters, ma, signifies mass.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: That's a very important part of that equation, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: If you change the mass, it can change the whole analysis, can it?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not sure I understand your question.
MR. BRENNAN: Let me make it more simple. When you did these tests, you chose an arm from a Hybrid III crash test dummy, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You can take that down, Miss Gilman. Now, when you made that choice, you knew that John O'Keefe's arm, based on the statistics and his weight of being 216 lbs, you knew that his arm weight would be 11.8 lbs, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you knew that he was 6'1 tall.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When you decided to choose an arm in this case, you didn't choose the arm closest to his weight, did you?
DR. WOLFE: It was representative enough.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes, it was representative enough. It was close enough.
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Close enough. Wouldn't you want to get an arm most closely related to his actual weight?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that you can have custom-made ATDs.
MR. BRENNAN: You probably can't custom make them, but they have one that's 12 pounds. You know that, don't you?
DR. WOLFE: Are you referring to the 95th percentile?
MR. BRENNAN: Yes, I am.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: So, there's a 12 lb arm. Mr. O'Keefe is 11.86 according to the statistics. You know that, right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You looked it up.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't tell us that on direct though, did you?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe I was asked that.
MR. BRENNAN: No. Instead of choosing the 12 pound arm, which is 0.12 difference, you chose a much lesser weight, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: It was about 10 lbs.
MR. BRENNAN: No, it wasn't about 10 lbs. It was less than 10 lbs. Let's be exact. You're a scientist. Let's be as precise as possible when we're talking about data. It was less than 10 lbs, wasn't it?
DR. WOLFE: I think according to the spec sheet, I think it's 9.4 pounds total.
MR. BRENNAN: How about 9.38? You keep coming up a little bit.
DR. WOLFE: 9.38 pounds.
MR. BRENNAN: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Showing you a photograph. Is that a photograph of your materials in this case?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And in that photograph, it shows the arm that you used in your studies, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And it shows that that arm weighs 9.38 lbs, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And that is less than the 11.86 pounds of O'Keefe's arm.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't put that photograph in your PowerPoint to make it clear to everybody you were using an arm that was a much lesser weight. Were you?
DR. WOLFE: I — no, I didn't put that photograph.
MR. BRENNAN: I'd like to move this to evidence, please.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Any objection, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: [unintelligible]
MR. BRENNAN: I'd like to show this to the jury.
JUDGE CANNONE: Submit it. Let madam court reporter mark it.
COURT CLERK: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Now you can play it. This is the arm that you used in all of your videos, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And — could you zoom in, Miss Gilman, on the weight? 9.38 pounds.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: There's a bigger difference between 9.38 and 11.86 than there is between 12 and 11.86, isn't there?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: So, when you do the math — and have you done the math before on this? When you do the math, it's a 26% difference, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: In terms of force.
MR. BRENNAN: No — mass weight. 26% difference.
DR. WOLFE: Okay. Right.
MR. BRENNAN: I'm going to trust you.
DR. WOLFE: Yeah.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, do you have a calculator?
DR. WOLFE: I do.
MR. BRENNAN: Can you do it?
DR. WOLFE: Sure.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And before you do that — you took this from a — You know, Mr. O'Keefe's 6'1. You used a crash test dummy. What is the height on it?
DR. WOLFE: Well, the ATD, I believe, is 5'7. The rescue Randy, I think, is six feet tall.
MR. BRENNAN: We'll talk about the rescue Randy later. We have questions about Randy. But let's talk about this. 5'9. You said 5'7. It's actually 5'9.
DR. WOLFE: Sorry. 5'9. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And it's 170 lbs.
DR. WOLFE: 171, I believe.
MR. BRENNAN: Mr. O'Keefe's not 170 lbs.
DR. WOLFE: No, not his whole body.
MR. BRENNAN: He wasn't 5'9.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So, when you do the math and you take the 9.38 lbs based on the 171 lb dummy and you look at the percentage, doesn't it come out to 5.48% of total body weight?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And so the difference when you look at it, it's a 26.3% difference from his actual weight, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And so I'm probably at the sixth grade level on this, but isn't it very basic that the more something weighs, the slower something has to go to have damage? And if something weighs less, the other part that collides with the force has to go faster.
DR. WOLFE: The force is going to be greater if the mass is greater.
MR. BRENNAN: So if you throw a 5 lb rock into a window, you can throw it slower to cause the same damage than if you have a 2 lb rock.
DR. WOLFE: I don't know if I agree with that analogy.
MR. BRENNAN: You agree that based on the 26% difference, in order to actually be accurate, to be specific, to be scientific, you then have to adjust the speeds that you presented on your demonstrations and you have to reduce the speed by 26%?
DR. WOLFE: I don't agree with that.
MR. BRENNAN: Don't agree with that. Do you think that having a lighter arm — so what you're telling us is having a lighter arm would cause the exact same amount of damage to the tail light studies as a heavier arm. Is that what you're telling us?
DR. WOLFE: Well, if you look at, for instance, the 29 mph impact test, that's significantly more kinetic energy. So the momentum of a 6,000 lb vehicle moving at 24 mph, 29 mph, that's going to overcome whatever the mass is that it's hitting at that point.
MR. BRENNAN: You're sidestepping my question.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask a question, Mr. Brennan. Just ask a question. No more.
MR. BRENNAN: My question is, are you telling us that having a lighter arm does not impact the damage in these tests as opposed to using the heavier arm?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly not in the field test. No.
MR. BRENNAN: And so — do you disagree there's a 26.3% difference when you look at the weights of those arms?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You disagree?
DR. WOLFE: No. I'm sorry. What was your question?
MR. BRENNAN: Do you agree there was a 26.3% difference in the arm weight that you used compared to John O'Keefe?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. The Hybrid arm compared to Mr. O'Keefe's arm. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you are denying that there needs to be an adjustment to your calculation because the mass — ma — is different. You're denying that.
DR. WOLFE: I think — again, if — and this is something Dr. Rentschler I believe will talk to you.
MR. BRENNAN: I don't want to talk to Dr. Rentschler.
DR. WOLFE: Well, because when you're addressing the forces for injury and the mechanisms for injury, right, you would account for the difference in the weight.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you're saying that it makes no difference that you use an arm that was 26% lighter. Is that what you're saying to us?
DR. WOLFE: No, I don't think it would have made a significant difference, especially if you look at, for instance, the 95th percentile hand and the 50th percentile hand — they both weigh 1.25 pounds. They're the exact same weight. There's about a pound more roughly in the forearm and a pound more distributed in the upper arm.
MR. BRENNAN: That's not my question. It's not whether it's significant or not. I'm asking you, are you saying under oath right now that a 26.3% difference had no impact on the calculations in that study. It would have no impact at all.
DR. WOLFE: The calculations, yes. But in terms of the damage, no. I don't think that one pound difference — when we're talking about something that's 6,000 lbs striking something that's — quite frankly, whether it's 9.4 or it's 11 something, you're not going to get a difference in the damage.
MR. BRENNAN: So why have a 3 lb arm up there?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think that's unreasonable, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: What's that?
DR. WOLFE: I think that's unreasonable.
MR. BRENNAN: What's the difference? It's a 6,000 lb car according to you. What's the difference between 26% or 40%?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I don't even know that I agree with your percentage, because again, you're accounting for the whole part of the arm that goes up to here, which we did not strike that part.
MR. BRENNAN: How much lighter? Two pounds and what? How many ounces?
DR. WOLFE: Sorry, what was your question?
MR. BRENNAN: How much lighter is it?
DR. WOLFE: In terms of a percentage?
MR. BRENNAN: No, in terms of weight. The weight — 9.38, right? Mr. O'Keefe — 11.86, right?
DR. WOLFE: About 2.48.
MR. BRENNAN: And you're saying that makes no difference?
DR. WOLFE: Not in the observed damage at those speeds. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Why didn't you use a 5 lb arm, sir?
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry. What was your question?
MR. BRENNAN: Why didn't you use a 5 lb arm?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I don't know that they make a 5 lb ATD arm.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't tell us when you did these studies. You didn't disclose in your PowerPoint that you used an arm that was much lighter than Mr. O'Keefe's arm, did you?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that it was — I didn't give the weight in the presentation.
MR. BRENNAN: No. Let's take a look at some of your testing. The first one was at 10 mph, test A. You remember that test, right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Now, 10 miles per hour — if you had taken 26% off, would you agree it would change the actual speed from 10 miles per hour to 7.67 mph if you did the math? If you did it specifically, accurately, precisely — would you agree that using the wrong arm, you make the deductions in the calculations, and that 10 mile per hour test would actually be 7.67 miles per hour? Would you agree with that?
DR. WOLFE: I would allow that. No, because again, the arm is going to get accelerated up to that speed. So the speed — that mass would still be accelerated up to 10 miles per hour. Same thing in the vehicle testing. It's going to be — given that weight difference, it's going to be accelerated up to that speed.
MR. BRENNAN: Now — can we see the video of test A, please. Now this is your study. 10 miles per hour, you claim, with an arm that is 9.38 pounds.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Mr. O'Keefe — 11.86 lbs.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Now this light on the end of this — you're trying to replicate the light on the back of a Lexus.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: If a Lexus at 6,000 lbs hits a person, the Lexus isn't stopping automatically, is it?
DR. WOLFE: No. It would move at a common velocity with the arm. It would continue to push forward through the arm.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes,
DR. WOLFE: It may. Yes. And the arm can push into the light before the body turns.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes.
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that I agree with that.
MR. BRENNAN: No. If the light on the Lexus, not at this speed, but if the light on the Lexus was broken or breaks and it hits the arm, it's not going to bounce off the arm. It's going to push through, isn't it? It's going to move at a common velocity with the arm and that will move not only the arm, it will move the person's body, won't it?
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear]
DR. WOLFE: It may. Yes. It may push the body, it may throw the body. I don't know about throw. And the light if broken will continue to press against the arm until there's separation. Isn't that fair to say? It could in some instances. Again, it could bounce. It could because it's not always the same.
MR. BRENNAN: It's a dynamic process, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: It is dynamic. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You could do the test many times and get very different results, couldn't you?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that I agree with that.
MR. BRENNAN: Would you get the same result every time?
DR. WOLFE: I think you would certainly get similar results every time, if you had the exact same impact location and speeds.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, that's my point. What if the impact location moved a little bit? Could it change?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I don't—
MR. BRENNAN: Is this Dr. Welcher's—
DR. WOLFE: I don't know. I was relying on what he provided. This is not Dr.
MR. BRENNAN: Welcher. I'm asking you.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
MR. BRENNAN: No, it's not.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So, jurors, disregard that exchange between counsel. Next question.
MR. BRENNAN: If the body position changed, you may get a different result. Isn't that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: I was going after what Dr. Welcher had represented in his report analysis. So we did testing to analyze his orientation that he had demonstrated in his report.
MR. BRENNAN: You don't like that question either?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
DR. WOLFE: If the body position changed, it could change the result. True. I don't know what you mean by body position. Do you mean the whole body, the arm? What part of the body?
MR. BRENNAN: Let's start with the arm. If the arm position changes, it could change the results, couldn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I'm not aware of any other orientation that Dr. Welcher provided in his analysis report as to alternative orientations.
MR. BRENNAN: If the arm position changed, could it change the result?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. I mean, I presume if you don't have your arm on the tail light, then yes, you'll probably get a different result.
MR. BRENNAN: What if it's bent in a different way? Could that change the result?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I haven't reviewed anything that indicates that there was a different orientation that Dr. Welcher suggested.
MR. BRENNAN: You're a scientist, right? You can think. I'm asking you just a general question over here. If you bend the arm, could it change the result?
DR. WOLFE: It could.
MR. BRENNAN: Thank you. Okay. When a person, a pedestrian is struck, they are not held stationary on a harness, are they?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: In this case, the crash test dummy is on a harness.
DR. WOLFE: Yes, he's supported.
MR. BRENNAN: Strapped?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: By its hips or pelvis?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: That's not real life. That's not how a pedestrian is usually when they're hit, right? They're not strapped to a harness, are they?
DR. WOLFE: No. And again, the purpose of this test was to evaluate the arm. We're not looking at the whole body here with this test.
MR. BRENNAN: And when we talk about injuries, part of injuries is not just the impact. It's the drag in this case from the car, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: It could be. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: But when you put the dummy on a harness, restricting or restraining its movement, it is not going to replicate hitting somebody and their movement, including the drag. Is it?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that I agree with that because it will replicate — when we're talking about that impact pulse of 10 milliseconds, it will replicate that. And that's ultimately what we're after: what's happening in that 10-millisecond window in terms of the contact and the damage and the acceleration.
MR. BRENNAN: I know that's what you're after. What I'm asking you is when you end it, when the light stops, unlike a Lexus, and the dummy is stationary, unlike a person, it affects the aftermath, the drag and the push after, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. The kinematics would be different, likely, if it's not restrained like that.
MR. BRENNAN: In real life, a pedestrian usually is not restrained, are they?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: In real life, a 6,000 lb Lexus upon contact with an arm doesn't usually stop on a dime, does it?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Can I have the photo from test A, please? And so there is no break, but there is a crack in this light that was a result of this experiment where this light hits that restrained dummy.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And this is at 10 miles per hour in your world and 7.67 if you take off the 26% weight.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained on that point.
MR. BRENNAN: We can move to test B, please. Now, this test B, a similar test. It has the same limitations, doesn't it? This dummy is restrained at the pelvis.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Could you show the video, please? There's two videos. We can see the first one. And was the dummy restrained by its head as well?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Was its arm restrained in any way?
DR. WOLFE: It was tethered, but it was free to move.
MR. BRENNAN: This test you have is 17 mph with the arm that's 9.38 lb. Mr. O'Keefe's 11.86 lb arm. If you considered that 26% difference, wouldn't it be fair to say that this test rather than replicate 17 mph would actually replicate 12.6 mph?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Can you answer that?
DR. WOLFE: Not the way it's phrased.
MR. BRENNAN: No. Okay. And so looking at this test, test B, which you say is 17 miles per hour, can you do a calculation for the 26% difference, or is that something that you don't think is fair?
DR. WOLFE: I don't think that'd be a fair way to characterize it. Again, no matter what the mass is there, if you're accelerating it, if you're impacting at 17, that arm is going to move at 17.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, not just the movement, the damage. If this arm was five pounds, do you think the test would have the same exact result?
DR. WOLFE: If it's five pounds, yes, probably would be less damage.
MR. BRENNAN: It'd be less damage. So to get this amount of damage, you would have to increase the weight, right?
DR. WOLFE: Sorry, what was your question?
MR. BRENNAN: To get this amount of damage, you couldn't use a 5 lb arm. There would be less damage with a 5 lb arm.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Right. Because the less weight you use, the less damage at that speed. That's basically how it works.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So in this test, if we could run that back again, you have a restrained dummy at the hips and the head. There's no follow-through of the light or the body that's attached to that arm.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And at this speed, you can see the shards of tail light. You can see them move, can't you? When you say move, you mean just not stationary.
DR. WOLFE: Yeah. I mean they're moving from the tail light as they break.
MR. BRENNAN: Detach from the tail light.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. They're broken.
MR. BRENNAN: That could create a debris field.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you can see them floating in the air. Some of them actually floating and then touching the sweater. Do you see that?
DR. WOLFE: Possibly. Some of it might be against some of that polyurethane foam.
MR. BRENNAN: Yeah. Some might be. And why don't we play it again so we can see clearly. Some might be tail light shards too, right?
DR. WOLFE: That black object spinning, that's not poly foam, is it?
MR. BRENNAN: No, it would not be. That'd be tail light shards, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Right. And so even at this speed you can see in this type of collision there is a significant amount of tail light shards that are broken from the tail light and spewing into the air, aren't they?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Well, on one of the slides I had, I showed the fragments that were left and from what I recall, I think there were four pieces from the tail light from the lens.
MR. BRENNAN: If you could put that back a little so Dr. Wolfe can see it again to the point of the collision, even at this speed. Go ahead. Stop. You can see pieces — large, small, medium, maybe even microscopic — are now breaking off from that tail light and being littered into the air, aren't they?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, there are pieces coming off.
MR. BRENNAN: We can go to test C, please. Now, in test C, you actually use only an arm. Isn't that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: You don't use a body or a crash test dummy.
DR. WOLFE: No, you don't.
MR. BRENNAN: In fact, this is not the 12 lb arm either. This is the 9.38 lb arm.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And when you do this test, you have the arm. It's basically just an object suspended in the air, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you said, I think on direct examination, that this is the same as if it was on the dummy. Is that your testimony?
DR. WOLFE: Well, in terms of the amount of weight that would be interacting with the tail light, whether it's attached to the dummy or not, what's in direct contact is going to be the same.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, the fact that it's just floating up in the sky like that, it's very different than if it was attached to a person or a dummy, isn't it? In terms of how it moves immediately after the impact.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Not just how it moves. As far as the impact, isn't it different?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that I agree with that.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Well, wouldn't you say that in addition to the arm, if you had another 200-plus pounds being held down by gravity, that would affect the force that's acting on the arm?
DR. WOLFE: Well, the arm again is going to be accelerated, but the center of mass of the body is not going to see that acceleration.
MR. BRENNAN: Have you testified before in this case about the importance of the full body and gravity?
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry, what was your question?
MR. BRENNAN: Have you testified before in this case about the effect of gravity and the full force of a body as opposed to just an arm?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And do you remember whether you thought it important on a previous time you testified that there was significance to the arm being attached to a 200-plus lb body and there was the issue of gravity that would affect force?
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, I think that had to deal with whether or not the pedestrian would be projected based upon an interaction with the arm or a full-on center of gravity hit. Right? When we're only hitting the arm, we're not hitting the CG of the body.
MR. BRENNAN: You did test B and you claimed it was at 17 miles per hour. Test B, correct? And we saw the damage. This is at 15 mph. Test C. Could you play this, please? It might be a delay, so you could fast forward a little bit, please. How many times do you think that arm spun around?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know.
MR. BRENNAN: That's not what would happen to a person who got hit. Their arm wouldn't spin through their body like that, would it?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Their arm
MR. BRENNAN: Wouldn't spin that many times.
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: There'd be the pull of their body weight.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. I'm sorry. What was your question?
MR. BRENNAN: It'd be the pull of their body weight. The body weight.
DR. WOLFE: Yeah.
MR. BRENNAN: Would affect the movement afterwards.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Gravity.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yeah.
MR. BRENNAN: And so there's a reason why you do this test at 15 miles per hour. Is there a photo related to this, to the damage to the tail light? There is a reason why at 15 mph the damage is much different than the other test at 17 mph. Isn't there? Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Right.
MR. BRENNAN: Because at 17 mph you have a dummy that is strapped by a harness in his pelvis, and when it's hitting the arm, it's affecting it much differently than just an arm floating in air.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. No, I don't agree with that. The primary reason there's a difference in the damage is because of the amount of the arm that's outstretched and interacting with the tail lights.
MR. BRENNAN: There's a difference in those two tests. And so the body and the weight of the body, you're saying, has nothing to do with the amount of damage?
DR. WOLFE: Not in these tests. No.
MR. BRENNAN: So when somebody gets hit, does the body weight have anything to do with the damage? Not just the area that gets hit. Does the body weight affect it at all?
DR. WOLFE: Not in terms of the impact — the rest of the body. That's not going to matter if, for instance, only my hand — like in that last test we just saw, it was the hand and the wrist. How much my stomach weighs, my head weighs, is not going to affect the damage to that tail light in that interaction.
MR. BRENNAN: And by the way, this test you said 15 miles per hour. If you consider the 26%, you're only at 11.1 mph. Is that the right math?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I don't agree with that, because if you look at the data and you integrate the acceleration data to get the speed — the data we saw on those plots — the hand basically gets up to, I think, 14 or 15 mph. It reaches that common velocity of the vehicle.
MR. BRENNAN: Let's go to test F. On test F, you placed the dummy more behind the vehicle, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And when you put it more behind the vehicle, this is more of a full impact than it is a clipping, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And when you put this dummy behind the car, this was not a legitimate crash test dummy. It was a different type of dummy, wasn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: It's called a Rescue Randy.
DR. WOLFE: A Rescue Randy.
MR. BRENNAN: And that is not typically the type of dummy that you're going to use for a crash test, is it?
DR. WOLFE: I wouldn't agree with that.
MR. BRENNAN: When you did the Rescue Randy crash test F, did you use the 12-pound arm or did you stick with the 9.38?
DR. WOLFE: The hybrid arm wasn't attached to the Rescue Randy.
MR. BRENNAN: The hybrid arm was not. Is that what you said — or it was?
DR. WOLFE: It was not. No, not in the full impact test.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So what was the weight of the arm on the Rescue Randy?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know specifically the weight of the arm. I know that the total mass of the Rescue Randy was 200 lb.
MR. BRENNAN: Isn't the weight of the arm important when you're talking about the impact of the arm?
DR. WOLFE: I don't think so, relative to the rest of the mass of the body.
MR. BRENNAN: So now the mass of the body counts, but before it didn't.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Enough.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. If we can see in test F, we have some photographs. Start with the first one. If you could widen that, please. Now, this is a direct hit.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Is this simply a photo or a video? Could we go to the next one, please? So, the Rescue Randy is placed much further in the car than the other type of test that would be more similar to a clip.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Next photo, please. And that is the result of the impact.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you see the debris field?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Is it near Rescue Randy?
DR. WOLFE: Some of it is. Yes. Yeah. It's spread out a little bit.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. That's fair. Yes. But it's not right on his body. It's a distance from his body.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. There may be some — I can't tell from this photo. There may be some around his body, but yes, there's also debris close to the Lexus as well.
MR. BRENNAN: And this is the demonstration where you didn't turn on the videotape, so we don't have a videotape.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: We had the false start.
DR. WOLFE: Yep.
MR. BRENNAN: What's that?
DR. WOLFE: We had the false start.
MR. BRENNAN: The false start. Is there another picture after this? Those clothes — are there holes or tears in the clothes?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. There's damage that's consistent with road rash, when clothing or a body makes contact with the pavement and is grinding into the pavement.
MR. BRENNAN: Pavement's hard.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: How about frozen ground? Frozen dirt. Is that hard?
DR. WOLFE: Yeah, I suppose it can be.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, do you have any doubt whether frozen ground in the Northeast in the winter is hard? Hard as a rock?
DR. WOLFE: I haven't done any analysis to assess that.
MR. BRENNAN: And so seeing holes in those clothes is what you would expect after Randy hits that hard ground, right?
DR. WOLFE: Are you talking about frozen grass or pavement?
MR. BRENNAN: I'm talking about Randy right now. These holes in the clothes are what you would expect after Randy hits the hard ground.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow that. Is that what you'd expect? All right, jurors, feel free to stand up and stretch.
MR. BRENNAN: So holes in the clothes is what you would expect after Randy hits the ground.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. If there is prolonged sliding contact with the asphalt, certainly you could expect to see tearing, large holes, material fraying, and even transfer of pavement material onto the clothing.
MR. BRENNAN: You've done no studies on hard ground like a front yard, have you?
DR. WOLFE: In terms of a pedestrian sliding on the grass and clothing tears — no, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: And if you could go back one slide — you see the debris field is near but not on Randy. Can you tell if there's any small pieces or microscopic pieces on or in Randy's clothes in the study? Did you look?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: If I could go to test E, please. Test E, you cite as having a speed of 24 miles per hour.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And that's with an arm that is 9.38 lb.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And to remind you, Mr. O'Keefe's arm would be about 11.86 lb.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: If you would reduce 26%, you'd be at 17.8 miles per hour, wouldn't you?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Are you doing the math, Dr. Wolfe?
DR. WOLFE: I don't agree with his characterization.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, next question.
MR. BRENNAN: I understand you don't agree, but if you took 26% off of 24 miles per hour, you would come out to 17.8 mph, wouldn't you?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow that. I'm going to allow that.
DR. WOLFE: That's what the calculation would yield.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. On test E, there are some differences between your test and what would happen in real life. For example, there is a harness.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And the harness prevents the dummy from being thrown naturally.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: The harness affects your ability — or one's ability — to see the study and see what the trajectory would be after impact.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Well, that wasn't the purpose of the study, to assess the trajectory.
MR. BRENNAN: Sir, I understand. Not trying to criticize, but it affects the ability to see the trajectory when the dummy's on a harness, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Could we put up the first video on this, please? Photo 115, if we can start with it. If you can stop it right there — you can see the feet aren't as firmly planted on the ground as a person would be in most circumstances, because of that harness.
DR. WOLFE: Yes, correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And that affects gravity, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Affects gravity.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, when the car hits, the weight of the dummy is less because it's held up by a harness, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Right.
MR. BRENNAN: So gravity really is, again — it's suspended at this point just above the ground. The arm that's extended — is there a glass in that hand?
DR. WOLFE: No, there's not — no more weight in the hand.
MR. BRENNAN: So there's no object in the hand in any of these tests.
DR. WOLFE: No, because ultimately what would happen is, because of the accelerometer being mounted on the palm of the hand, if you had a glass there, it would interfere with those measurements.
MR. BRENNAN: I understand why you didn't do it. But would you say it's fair to say that if a glass was in the dummy's hand on these tests, it could affect or change the damage?
DR. WOLFE: Well, if you add another — you know, I think the drinking glass we utilized for the testing last year, I think it was 7 pounds. So if you add another 7 lb to the hand, that hand contacts the liftgate tail light, you certainly could see damage to that tail light, which we certainly didn't see on the subject vehicle.
MR. BRENNAN: So weight does kind of matter, right?
DR. WOLFE: It can. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Not just 7 lbs. The 9 and 12 lbs can matter too. Weight matters.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Because that's kind of what we were talking about for the last half hour. Weight matters in these tests, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. But you can't look at this in isolation — just between damage — you can't separate it from the injuries, right? What's going to happen to the body in terms of the injuries in a 24 mph impact? Does weight matter in terms of the force?
MR. BRENNAN: And so we see this dummy with the arm stretched out.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Can we bring this back? Stop right there. This isn't an approved crash test dummy. Is it the Rescue Randy portion?
DR. WOLFE: No. No.
MR. BRENNAN: It's not instrumented like a Hybrid III. Is the arm the Hybrid III?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, the arm is the Hybrid III.
MR. BRENNAN: So you took in Test F — you didn't put the Hybrid III on the Rescue Randy, but on this one you did.
DR. WOLFE: No, because you risk — these ATD devices can range from $100,000 to $150,000, and you run the risk of destroying that equipment in a test like that.
MR. BRENNAN: So, in Test F, did you put the Hybrid III on Randy or did you keep Randy's original arm?
DR. WOLFE: It's just the Rescue Randy in the last test on F. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: This one you have the Hybrid III arm on Randy.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you're switching up between tests — what pieces you're using, aren't you?
DR. WOLFE: I would say adding — well, adding and subtracting.
MR. BRENNAN: It doesn't have two arms. There's one off, one on. One's Randy and one's Hybrid III. So, you're switching.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Different result.
DR. WOLFE: I'm not sure I understand your question. Okay. Are you trying to say a different result between Test F and this test? Because they're not the same test.
MR. BRENNAN: Oh, I understand. If we can have this come back a little bit more. And let it run. Stop. You can see the shattered tail light moving, and most of it's moving in the same direction, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And that's what creates a debris field after a collision, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. I mean, components will break off and fall to the ground. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Now, since Randy is on a harness, he's not going to be thrown the same way as it would happen in real life, is he?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. And that wasn't the purpose of this test, understand?
MR. BRENNAN: When you chose 24 miles per hour without the 26% deduction, which would make it 17.8 miles per hour — when you chose 24 miles per hour, it's because you had looked at the text stream data that had been taken from the defendant's Lexus, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And when you looked at that data, you understood that during that event, 10 seconds of data is captured.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: But that doesn't define the whole event, does it? That only encompasses what was recorded. And you said you chose 24 miles per hour because that was about the speed at the end of that 10 seconds.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: You do realize at the end of that 10 seconds the defendant's Lexus was going faster — it was still accelerating, don't you?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it.
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, the last data point — I believe the throttle was still at around 74%.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, ARCCA specializes in text stream data, don't they?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So, looking at that, you would agree that at the end of the 10 seconds the defendant's Lexus was increasing in speed.
DR. WOLFE: Well, we don't know — beyond that data point, what the data is.
MR. BRENNAN: At the end of that 10 seconds the car was going up, not down, in speed.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And you can't tell how much longer that car traveled after that 10 seconds, can you?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. We don't know.
MR. BRENNAN: So when you chose 24 miles per hour, it was just based on a data point. It wasn't based on you believing that there was an impact at a certain speed, was it?
DR. WOLFE: No. And the triggering event itself — it's not a collision by definition. And nowhere in that data can you parse out whether or not any contact even occurred. We know that.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. The point — the point is you can't tell how fast the vehicle was going, if it was in a collision, from that data. Can you?
DR. WOLFE: Sorry. Can you repeat the question?
MR. BRENNAN: If that vehicle was in a collision, you wouldn't be able to tell from that data what the speed was at the time of the collision.
DR. WOLFE: If contact allegedly occurred at some point in that data set, no, you would not be able to pick a row in that data and say this is where the collision occurred. Or after that data set, you would have no idea outside of the data.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. No. Okay. And so when you look at this experiment that you did — if you were to add, you said 24 miles per hour, but that's not considering the 26%. If you were to add 7 more miles per hour to this collision, would you expect more damage to that right tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Potentially, yes. But you're certainly getting into the realm of injury at that point.
MR. BRENNAN: I'm not asking about that. I'm asking you a simple question about damage. If you were to add 7 mph onto this test here, would you expect more damage to that right rear tail light?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Can you finish the video? Okay. Now, I want to ask you some questions. You can stop there. I want to ask you some questions. Can you bring it back to right before the collision, please? Speed changes the result of this, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. The impact speed can change the result of this — the damage to the right rear tail light. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Correct. And the angle of the arm can change the damage to that right rear tail light, can't it?
DR. WOLFE: It can. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you take any pictures of the debris field after the impact and damage in this Test E? Did you take any photographs of the debris field?
DR. WOLFE: I believe so. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Was it included in your materials that you provided us?
DR. WOLFE: It should have been in all of the test materials that were provided. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Was the debris field within a certain range? Was it within a certain circle? 10, 20, 30 feet?
DR. WOLFE: That sounds about right.
MR. BRENNAN: And so a debris field, although it might scatter, it almost forms kind of a ring, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: It can. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And it can form that ring away from where the body lands, can't it?
DR. WOLFE: It can. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And in this test, which you say is 24 miles per hour without the reduction to 17.8 miles per hour, upon impact, there are a number of pieces of tail light that shatter, isn't there?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you count how many?
DR. WOLFE: About 19 pieces.
MR. BRENNAN: 19 pieces. Could you move forward just a little bit? And when they break and scatter, some of them go up, some go down. Stop, please.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Some of them come in contact with Randy's arm.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Now, Randy being on a harness, it's not like real life — when the Lexus goes by, it could continue to push him with it, right? He can't go with the car because he's on a harness.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: He's not going to move from that position. If you can move forward. Do you see Randy's feet?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: See the right foot?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: It's twisting, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Turning.
MR. BRENNAN: Stop. Could you show the photo of the sneaker, please? When you were reaching your conclusions that you offered to the jury today, did you consider this photograph?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you know that this sneaker was up against a curb in the area?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you didn't consider this at all?
DR. WOLFE: Wasn't a part of my analysis.
MR. BRENNAN: You go back to the video. You see the spin and rotation on the foot?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Can you keep going — the turn of the sneaker?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. I want you to go back — Miss Gilman, please — to the point of impact. In your studies, you would agree there can be a clip of a pedestrian that causes significant damage to a tail light where the pedestrian incurs no lower body injuries whatsoever. That can happen, can it?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I don't know that I would describe this as a clip to the arm. This is a full-on impact to the arm. So, it's not a clip. Again, you saw at the 15 mph. I think that's more analogous to a clip or a sideswipe where the arm just kind of gets brushed out of the way. This, I would say, is a full-on impact to the arm.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. To use your words, in a full-on impact like this, a pedestrian could be involved in a full-on impact causing that amount of damage to the tail light reflected in this video, but suffer no lower body injuries. Isn't that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: I don't address injuries, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, let's play it forward. Do we ever see Randy's knees hit the car?
DR. WOLFE: Hips, ribs — I see the foot getting run over, but I don't think there was contact with the legs. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Would you agree that a pedestrian could be in this type of collision and suffer no lower body injuries based on your presentation here?
DR. WOLFE: Sir, I don't address injuries. Biomechanics is not my area of specialty.
MR. BRENNAN: You said it's common in vehicle pedestrian collisions that there is some type of bumper displacement.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: That — yes. Okay. Bring it back to the beginning. Please stop. Any bumper displacement in this collision? In this specific test?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: You said that on direct you would expect that there would be some panel deformation. What does that mean?
DR. WOLFE: So if, for instance, let's say the hand is not contacting the tail light, or a portion of it is contacting the lift gate, you could see deformation to that body paneling.
MR. BRENNAN: You said that you would expect to see — not that you could. What you said on direct is you would expect to see panel deformation.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you said in this case there was none. Right. Talking about the defendant's Lexus — you said you would expect to see panel deformation, and in this case, the defendant's Lexus, there was none. That's what you told us on direct.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Let's watch E. Let's watch your video. Play it ahead. Is there any panel deformation — stop — in this?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So when you said on direct examination relative to the defendant's Lexus, you would expect panel deformation and there was none — there are examples, one that you gave us yourself, where there is a collision causing this amount of damage to a tail light where there's no panel deformation.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it.
DR. WOLFE: Right. If I recall, I think you're referring to my prior testimony in another proceeding where I had not conducted this testing yet. So ultimately, that's part of the reason why this testing was conducted — to evaluate that.
MR. BRENNAN: In this case, the damage to the right rear tail light — there's no panel deformation there, is there?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. There is not.
MR. BRENNAN: When somebody is wearing a hat and they're involved in a collision similar to this, can their hat fall off?
DR. WOLFE: Potentially.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you look at photos? Is there a photo of the hat? Miss Gilman— before you came to your opinions and conclusions, did you look at this photo and see a hat on the grass?
DR. WOLFE: I did review this. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And did you give any consideration when you did your tests to whether the hat would come off Randy— or any crash test dummy— when you hit it at that speed?
DR. WOLFE: No, that wasn't a part of my evaluation.
MR. BRENNAN: Could I have photo 77, please?
DR. WOLFE: What's that, sir? So I don't know if you'll be able to see it in the photograph, but there was some material transfer from the jeans that the rescue Randy was wearing. And so as a result of that impact, there was scuffing from Randy's jeans onto this exemplar Lexus.
MR. BRENNAN: There was scuffing?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you look at the defendant's photos of the defendant's Lexus, to see if there was— to see if there was any scuffing in a very similar area?
DR. WOLFE: I don't recall it being at that portion of the vehicle close to the rear wheel.
MR. BRENNAN: Where did you see the scuffing on the defendant's Lexus?
DR. WOLFE: I think there was some scrapes along the wraparound section of the bumper cover.
MR. BRENNAN: The bottom part?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: It's not claimed that's attributed to the collision, so I don't want you to consider that. But did you see other scuffs a little higher up on the Lexus?
DR. WOLFE: I did, but I don't know that those— those could certainly just be normal wear and tear to the vehicle.
MR. BRENNAN: Is that normal wear and tear? This?
DR. WOLFE: No, because we observed it in the test.
MR. BRENNAN: Could I have photo 153, please? Okay. Now, this is a photo without the hatchback up. This is just the lighting fixture, right?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And could you close up on that? And you would agree if you went seven miles per hour faster, it would cause more damage to that, wouldn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When the tail light is shattered and it spreads through the air, does it have the potential to impale a person, for example, on their nose?
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?
MR. BRENNAN: In your test, you saw that upon collision, there was a scattering of tail light that broke from the fixture. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Would those shards, as they float or fly through the air— would they have the ability to impale a person on their face or even their nose?
DR. WOLFE: I think that would be unlikely.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And finally, we've discussed— you now would agree with me that weight does matter, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: It can if it's significant.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. I have no further questions.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Jackson.