In the retrial of Karen Read for the murder of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, the trial is intensifying over the role of expert testimony and how jurors interpret it. A retired Massachusetts judge emphasized that jurors hold significant power in evaluating expert opinions, suggesting that their skepticism may be pivotal in determining the case’s outcome.
The prosecution claims that Read’s SUV struck O’Keefe, with his injuries matching the impact of a collision. However, defense experts, including Dr. Daniel Wolfe, are challenging the validity of the crash reconstruction and the reliability of key evidence. Brennan, the special prosecutor, is facing resistance in the courtroom as defense witnesses expose gaps in the prosecution’s scientific foundation. The trial’s outcome will depend on how jurors perceive the credibility of the experts and the evidence presented.
Dr. Daniel Wolfe, a director at the ARCCA crash reconstruction firm, testified that the results of numerous tests he conducted to try and reconstruct the alleged crash that killed O’Keefe came back with ‘inconsistent’ results. During cross-examination, special prosecutor Hank Brennan criticized Wolfe’s methods, pointing out he used a dummy significantly smaller than O’Keefe, alternated between different types of dummy arms without noting this during direct examination, and conducted only one test at each speed rather than multiple tests to check for consistent results.
A key moment in Wolfe’s testimony came not from his findings but from Brennan’s questioning about a video clip showing Read picking glass out of O’Keefe’s nose, which the defense claims supports their theory of the case. Brennan played a clip of Read telling an interviewer she pulled a ‘piece of glass’ out of O”Keefe’s nose and that it started bleeding. Wolfe’s task has been to discredit the prosecution’s core allegation that Read slammed into O’Keefe in reverse with her 2021 Lexus LX 570 SUV, leaving him to die on the ground in a blizzard on January 29, 2022.
The defense is also aiming to sow reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s crash experts, Dr. Judson Welcher and Shanon Burgess from a firm called Aperture. Welcher testified last week that he believes O’Keefe’s injuries are ‘consistent with being struck by a Lexus and also contacting a hard surface, such as frozen ground.’ Wolfe found that the injuries were inconsistent when stacked up against the damage to Read’s SUV as well as the damage to O’Keefe’s clothing, which prosecutors allege had fragments of taillight plastic embedded in it.
Retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Jack Lu, a Boston College law professor, noted that juries have ‘great powers of observation’ and a ‘fundamental depth of experience seldom seen in American life.’ He predicted that the jury would conclude that both accident reconstructionists’ conclusions are not worthy of belief in a jury trial. Lu emphasized that jurors ‘view them with skepticism,’ particularly when experts are ‘hired guns.’
The defense’s strategy is to challenge the prosecution’s scientific foundation, as Mark Bederow, a New York City defense lawyer representing Canton blogger and Read ally Aidan Kearney, noted that the defense need not prove anything; they merely must establish reasonable doubt. He highlighted that Dr. Wolfe cast serious doubt by methodically dismantling the key premise of the prosecution case through multiple scientific examinations and effective video support for his opinion that the damage to the taillight was not consistent with the collision allegedly committed by the prosecution.
Read’s team is expected to rest their case next week. She could face up to life in prison if convicted of the top charge. The trial’s outcome remains uncertain, with the jury’s perception of the evidence and expert testimony playing a crucial role in their deliberations.