On the 29th day of Karen Read’s murder retrial, a crash reconstructionist returned to the stand as the legal proceedings move toward a critical phase. The defense is preparing to rest its case, with key evidence centered around the assertion that the injuries sustained by John O’Keefe were not caused by an SUV impact. Instead, the defense suggests that O’Keefe was ‘placed’ on the ground near a flagpole in Canton, Massachusetts, following Read’s departure from the scene.
The court has been engaged in discussions regarding the admissibility of expert testimony, with Judge Beverly Cannone indicating that an evidentiary hearing will be held to determine the extent of evidence that Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, a forensic pathologist and professor at Brown University, can present to the jury. This highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the reliability of expert evidence in criminal trials, a concern that has been raised by former judges.
A key point in the defense’s argument is the testimony of Dr. Daniel Wolfe, the crash reconstructionist from ARCCA, who previously stated that the damage to Read’s SUV is inconsistent with the impact that the prosecution claims led to O’Keefe’s death. However, during cross-examination, Wolfe conceded that flying fragments of a taillight could have contributed to O’Keefe’s facial and nasal injuries before he suffered a fractured skull from a backward fall.
Read faces the possibility of life imprisonment if found guilty of the charges of second-degree murder, drunken driving manslaughter, and leaving the scene. The jury, which previously deadlocked during the first trial, now faces the challenge of evaluating expert testimonies that could significantly influence the outcome. The case continues to draw significant public and media attention, with ongoing discussions on the role of expert evidence in criminal proceedings.