Emma Mac

Judge Beverly Cannone denied (predictably) the Commonwealth's motion to exclude Dr. Marie Russell's expert opinion that the wounds on Ofc. John O'Keefe's right arm were caused by a dog, not a Lexus taillight. What shocks (and frightens) me is Judge Cannone's remark that it was a 'close question'. It really wasn't. Those who witnessed Special Assistant DA Henry B. Brennan's boorish performance during the Daubert-Lanigan hearing saw the age-old 'when did you stop beating your wife' cliché brought to new extremes by a prosecutor whose objectives are far removed from the interests of the public. Mr. Brennan contorted himself every which way trying to goad Dr. Russell into ratifying the Michael Proctor/Joseph Paul version of the events of January 29, 2022. Did you consider the angle of impact? The speed of the car? The 'debris field'? It was nauseating. There was no impact. The 'debris field' was a concoction that didn't exist until days later. For Judge Cannone to rule about a 'close question' based solely on Mr. Brennan's unverified say-so lessens the integrity of the proceeding and cheapens its value, in my opinion. The Court conflated the foundation upon which Dr. Russell's expertise is built with the weight that ought to be afforded her opinion. She then made a judgement call, balancing Dr. Russell's learned opinion against what appears to be nothing more than Mr. Brennan's hyperbolic interpretation of Tpr. Joseph Paul's talismanic visions. It was kind of embarrassing. Needless to say, it's not supposed to work that way. The question is supposed to be whether Dr. Russell's training, expertise and experience meet the requirements of Mass. G. Evid. § 702 and Commonwealth v. Polk, not whether Mr. Brennan can accuse Dr. Russell of overlooking peculiar factual circumstances she'd have no reason to consider. Perhaps the only thing Mr. Brennan didn't accuse Dr. Russell of overlooking was the effect of @DoctorTurtleboy. "But Turtleboy, Dr. Russell! A-ha! You didn't consider Turtleboy in forming your conclusions, did you!" I write that firmly tongue-in-cheek, yet some seem to think that's the *only* thing that matters. Maybe next the Commonwealth will foist upon these proceedings the views of a 'professional dog bite wound identifier' it somehow conjures from the ether. I doubt such an individual exists except in Mr. Brennan's illusions. But to win the case, Mr. Brennan needs thoroughly persuasive testimony from someone who exceeds Dr. Russell's expertise. That person will have to convince all twelve jurors that no reasonable medical expert could possibly conclude that the wounds on Ofc. O'Keefe's arm were caused by a dog. I don't think that's gonna happen.