Dog Bite Expert or Just a 'Marie of all Trades'?
Tuesday Briefing: Hearing Updates and Recent Filings in the Karen Read Case
This past week, the Daubert-Lanigan hearing for Karen Read’s expert witness, Dr. Marie Russell wrapped up.
The focus of this hearing is to see if Dr. Marie Russell (Emergency Room Physician & Trained Forensic Pathologist) has the qualifications/knowledge in the specific scope of ‘dog bite pattern recognition’.
Prosecutor Brennan and Defense Attorney Alessi questioned the doctor’s methodology (or lack thereof) and the judge made a final decision to allow Dr. Marie Russell to be an expert witness in the upcoming trial.
The judge basically states that Dr. Russell meets the requirements to testify as a medical expert, and that her lack of expertise in “identification” of dog wounds that the prosecution demonstrated can be discussed on cross-examination.
Here’s a short montage clip of two moments from the hearing…
If you want to watch the hearings for yourself, here are the links for DAY 1 and DAY 2 (aired by Law & Crime).
Affidavits and Notes Recently Filed:
Journalist Gretchen Voss Affidavit - The Commonwealth requested any behind-the-scenes notes that journalist Voss took regarding her interview with defendant, Karen Read. The prosecution asserts that Karen Read willingly and proactively spoke with the media regarding the case, and that anything she said should be considered as evidence.
Journalist Voss asks the court to reconsider having her share those notes. She states that her job as a journalist leans on the trust of her sources. By sharing these notes, it could impact her own credibility (trust), and journalism confidentiality in general. She feels that the notes are not likely to be of any value anyways to the court, and that it would only cause unnecessary impacts.Notice to Exclude Defense Team’s ARCCA Experts Due to Inability to Comply with Rule 14 Obligations - The Commonwealth is stating that the court should prepare for a motion to exclude the two accident reconstruction experts (ARCCA) who worked in tandem to examine whether an accident caused John’s wounds.
The prosecution states that the issue with these experts is that the defense is simply unable to meet the Rule 14 obligations for discovery (the process of obtaining evidence). The prosecution states that the inability to meet the obligations is not the defense team’s fault, but it’s due to history and complexity of the witnesses’ “employment and directives”.
In simple terms —
These ARCCA guys were contracted out for the federal investigation, and it is unclear what the defense team provided them, what the in-person conversations were, and what exactly was directed regarding the analysis. The CW was never included in this process, and they assert that the transparency required for discovery is muddied and incomplete.
Michael Proctor (Investigator on the case) is set to go before the MSP (Mass State Police) board this week (1/15/25) regarding the inappropriate texts discovered in his personal phone. He is currently suspended with no pay. This hearing will decide his fate as an officer. It seems like many people on social media have mixed feelings surrounding whether he deserves to be fired or not.