Now there are X-Rays? What?! Arguments over evidence and ARCCA is back | Case Brief

The Emily Show

Baker Media, LLC.

Entertainment News, True Crime, News

4.9 • 2.1K Ratings

🗓️ 11 June 2025

⏱️ 38 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/qgkQm-VgMu0 Day 30 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on June 10, 2025. Defense Attorney Alan Jackson started the day by coming in hot and accused the Prosecution of "burden shifting," implying they were improperly trying to make the defense prove their case. He provided a transcript that the Prosecution opened the door to ask Dr. Laposata about dog bites when Brennan inquired Dr. Russell about Dr. Laposata's report about dos bites. The Judge Denied questioning about dog bites but okay to question about animal bites. The judge offered to give an instruction about burden shifting to the jury but Jackson declined it. There was confusion about whether Dr. Wrenchler had seen X-ray evidence, as he testified there were none done to the arm, while Dr. La Pasada's testimony indicated X-rays did exist. This point raises questions about what evidence was provided to Dr. Wrenchler and how rebuttal will go. During Cross Examination and the Morning Break, Brennan wanted to impeach Dr. Laposata's credibility with past issues from her time as a medical examiner, including an audit and handling of the Station nightclub fire. The court allowed some of this to be brought up during cross-examination but not all. A juror's question led to the court clarifying what it meant when video evidence was "stricken" during testimony showing that all jurors are paying attention and really want to get the understanding right. The Defense's last witness, Dr. Andrew Rentschler, a Biomechanical Engineer at ARCCA, testified about how ARCCA was hired by a government agency and was not given information about the case. They were only give the circumstances and to try to recreate it. His analysis of John O'Keefe's injuries were that the injuries were not consistent with being struck by the Lexus, specifically the tail light. He determined that the force required to produce the skull fracture was significantly higher than what could result from impact with the taillight at a speed of 15 mph. There were several disputes regarding the content of Dr. Rentschler's PowerPoint presentation, with objections to text containing hearsay and ultimate opinions. The court ordered the presentation to be edited, with certain text removed. This will be finalized on Day 31 before the jury comes in. RESOURCES What You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTS This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Welcome back. It's time for a case brief, keeping you in the loop with the cases you care about most, just more briefly.
0:05.2	If you want the full coverage, it's linked in the description below. But for now, let's get into it.
0:10.5	It's day 30 of the Karen Reed retrial. Today we are starting out with argument. We saw the attorneys saying that they were going to bring things before the court at the beginning of court today.
0:23.8	And when the court said, everybody needs to be ready around like 9.20, I thought she meant ready for the jury because she gave the jury an extra half hour this morning and they were going to give themselves like a half hour and started like nine.
0:35.0	No, that's not what they did at all.
0:36.3	So court didn't start until just a little bit ago. So we are going to be getting into court before the jury comes in
0:43.2	as they are doing arguments. I don't know why they didn't give themselves a full half hour. I really
0:48.2	don't. I don't know if stuff was filed and the court was in chambers reading it or if people
0:52.6	weren't there. I don't know.
0:57.8	But we're going to go to court and see argument, the defense has two witnesses left.
1:00.7	One's already on the stand, Dr. Lappasada.
1:08.6	I imagine we're going to see the defense arguing again about Dr. Lapasada being able to testify as an expert regarding dog bites. We also know that the defense is unhappy with the admonition
1:13.6	the court gave to the jury yesterday. That shouldn't have just been an instruction. That should
1:19.8	have also been an admonition. Attorney Brennan said or asked. And I went back yesterday and rewatched what the court indicated she was
1:30.3	going to say before she got upset with the defense for conferring with each other while she was on
1:34.3	the bench. And she was saying, attorney Brennan asked about this. That should be stricken. And I think she still should tell the jury that that information
1:47.3	should be stricken. She didn't. It was not enough of an admonition for me. The defense should
1:53.3	have had time to confer and ask for a stronger admonition. She told them it was going to be
1:59.3	stronger and then it wasn't. The court needed to give a stronger admonition.
2:03.4	So it's clear to the jury that those holes were there from the crime lab,
2:07.7	that the attorney was aware of it, that they were not there from the 29th.
2:11.7	And those pictures need to be in evidence.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Baker Media, LLC., and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Baker Media, LLC. and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.