Jurors throughout the second Karen Learn trial will in all probability hear all about Chloe the canine.
That’s as a result of the Norfolk Superior Court docket decide on Monday dominated that a “dog bite” knowledgeable introduced by the protection will probably be allowed to testify throughout the Learn retrial.
The Norfolk DA’s workplace had been attempting to toss the testimony from Dr. Marie Russell — a retired emergency room physician who throughout the first trial claimed that canine bites brought on the injuries to John O’Keefe’s physique on Jan. 29, 2022, the morning of the Boston cop’s demise.
Russell will once more be capable to present that canine chunk testimony for the protection within the retrial, which is scheduled for April.
“Although a close question, the Court will DENY the Commonwealth’s motion,” Decide Beverly Cannone wrote in her ruling on Monday.
“Here, the recognition of dog bite wounds is not within the common knowledge of a layperson and requires expert testimony, and Dr. Russell is a qualified expert as to these topics,” the decide wrote, later including, “The Court finds that Dr. Russell’s testimony satisfies the five foundational elements (for expert testimony) and therefore will allow Dr. Russell to testify as to whether the abrasions on John O’Keefe’s right arm were caused by a dog.”
Prosecutors have been arguing that Learn struck O’Keefe together with her Lexus SUV following an evening of ingesting and yet one more argument of their fraught two-year relationship, and left him to freeze and die on the entrance garden of 34 Fairview Street in Canton.
Learn faces prices of second-degree homicide, motorcar manslaughter whereas working below the affect, and leaving the scene of an accident inflicting demise.
The protection has countered with their very own idea, arguing that not solely is Learn harmless however that others are answerable for O’Keefe’s homicide.
One idea hinted at throughout the first trial is that individuals inside the house, probably together with then-homeowner Brian Albert, a fellow Boston cop, beat O’Keefe to demise after which used their affect on the town to border Learn. Additionally they mentioned Albert’s canine, a German Shepherd named Chloe which the household has since surrendered, participated within the assault.
Russell, who additionally labored as a forensic pathologist and medical expert, has continued to reject {that a} motorcar crash brought on the injuries to O’Keefe, saying none of them observe the everyday patterns of a motorcar strike.
“With respect to dog bites specifically, Dr. Russell has treated hundreds of wounds resulting from dog attacks during her time as an emergency room doctor, and co-authored peer-reviewed articles on the treatment of law enforcement canine bites in the emergency room,” the decide’s ruling reads.
Particular Prosecutor Hank Brennan throughout a listening to on whether or not to permit Russell’s testimony mentioned she was presenting a “factually wrong… baseless opinion about a so-called dog bite wound.”
Brennan grilled Russell over the “standards” and “methodology” that she utilized in concluding {that a} canine brought on the abrasions to O’Keefe’s proper arm.
Cannone, in her Monday ruling, famous that the prosecutors on cross-examination targeted on a number of points about Russell’s testimony.
“… That Dr. Russell’s expertise primarily concerns the treatment, not the identification, of dog bites,” the ruling reads. “That her evaluation of the abrasions failed to consider all available information; that she has not compared the abrasions with the dentition of the German Shepherd in question; and that her opinion is inconsistent with findings that there was no canine DNA in the area of the victim’s clothing near the abrasions.”
However the decide dominated that these points might be addressed throughout cross at trial.
The decide cited precedent about evaluating admissibility for a trial: “A judge does not… determine whether to credit the expert’s ultimate opinion.”
Requested for a remark about Cannone’s ruling, a spokesperson for the Norfolk DA’s workplace mentioned, “As this is a pending case, the NDAO has no comment on the judge’s ruling.”
Initially Printed:
