Thank you. Thank you. Yes, my name is Trooper. First class dan or daniel quarterly spelled Q U *** R T U L L. I. And I'm *** member of the state's collision analysis and reconstruction or car unit? Started part time? I believe. It was 2013 or 14 towards the winter of that. And full time as of September of 2016 I believe. And you received specialized training in reconstruction as part of that? Yes, I have. And what's the primary purpose of the to investigate serious, fatal or otherwise? High profile crashes in order to ultimately determine the events of the collision and bring about potential criminal charges if they are warranted. Um did you respond to the accident in Randolph on June June 21, 2019. Yes. What was your role? My role was to map the scene that evening. Um I'm issued *** total station. It's *** piece of surveying equipment and it is used to locate individual pieces of evidence so that the digital points that I capture can then be imported and turned into *** scale diagram. Yes. Uh The station is set up in *** way that ensures accuracy. Uh and I then carry *** target pole with me from each piece of evidence. Uh The station itself remains in one location and follows me around by itself as I choose which piece of evidence. I'm going to map. I enter *** code for that. Press *** button. *** laser shoots out, hits the prism on the top of the pole that I have captures the distance and the direction that the station is facing, And saves the information into *** small computer that I carry with me? Uh does that allow you to accurately locate? Uh Yes. And is that machine determining where that roadway evidence is in relation to other pieces of evidence? It turns it in relation to itself, but it cross references in *** way with all the other evidence based off the rotation of the machine and again the distance, the laser shooting. So when you're on the scene, uh explain how you're collecting the data. Uh Once I set the machine up, I will choose *** mapping code depending on the scene. I may start with the evidence with the roadway. If I start with the roadway, I'll pick, for instance, at the edge of the pavement, I'll pick the code that means edge of pavement, Put the pole at the edge of the pavement wherever I choose to start my scene, push the button to have the laser shoot out, capture that point and walk eight paces or so, depending on the size of the scene. To shoot another point. By doing that through the entire edge of the pavement and the rest of the lines, the rest of the roadway evidence. It captures the location of the evidence and the orientation of the roadway, so that I can put it in my diagram later. So it's just *** three dimensional diagram. It can be three dimensional, It does capture elevation. Not all of my scenes are shot with the intention of it being three dimensional though. So as you're you're collecting this evidence, are you collecting more than one data point? It collects uh an X. And *** Y. Or north and east coordinate. And an elevation point as well as the name of the data point that I chose an edge of pavement for an example. Okay, so you're but that's for each point that every individual point. Are you marking multiple points potentially on each piece of evidence? Yes. Depending on what that evidence is and characterization of what that what those data points mean? Are you entering that? I am you said that there's some pre programmed characterizations. There is *** list of pre programmed mapping codes that we choose from. Uh And did you produce *** file with all of the data that you collected? Um As far as the locations of all that evidence. Are you confident that you that data accurately represents the locations of all that the evidence points in the data that I produced accurately captured the best of my knowledge the point that I'm at? Yes. At some point, did you attempt to interpret some of the data that you collected? How soon after the accident did you make conclusions about What? Less than 24 hours? And were those conclusions incorporated into the car units Final report? I believe they were. Yes. At some point after you that final report was issued. Um Did it become clear to you that some of the original conclusions that you've reached were incorrect? Um So I'd like to uh actually, if I may have uh photographs and I'll show you what the mark as defense exhibit G. Um Can you identify what that photo is? *** photo of the craft scene west um And uh in this area on top of the yellow line. Uh can you describe what we're seeing here is *** tire mark characteristic? Okay. So you, did you mark that on your original uh total station diagram? And was that one of the marks that you issued sort of an opinion as to what that mark represented? And initially, what did you believe that that was representative? Initially were looking at my diagram like this photograph. I believe that mark was motorcycle coming into impact, not from the truck. Okay. At some point, did you change your opinion about what that, what do you now believe that that represents? Okay, thank you. What, So what happened to uh *** period of months after I had made my initial conclusions? It was brought to my attention that some of those conclusions were incorrect or may have been incorrect? And I was confronted with uh if not that photograph, *** similar one. At which point I identified it as it is *** flat tire mark on the road. Uh and corrected my narrative. And did you reach some conclusions about the location of the truck uh regarded by using that mark? General conclusions, yes. And what were those? That the truck was *** distance over the center line upon impacting the motorcycles, which would have at the time? I believe caused that mark as an avoidance maneuver. So it was your opinion at the time that that mark was left by *** motorcycle, that the truck was just some distance over the correct? Um you no longer believe that to be true, correct? What do you believe with respect to where the truck was at the point of impact based on your understanding of the market, with that mark not being from the motorcycle and knowing the characteristics of the crash, it puts the truck further towards the center line than I initially would have believed. Um There was also some other marks that you identified uh, as *** trailer brake, you call that. Um And at some point did your opinion about the characterization of that mark as *** trailer brake mark? Did that change it was brought into question? Um I was therefore uh brought to admit that. I don't know what caused it at the time, I drew that conclusion? I believe it to be *** trailer mark. I no longer know what caused that mark. Okay. Um and why? Why did you sort of change? What you believe about that questions were brought to me or or brought up within discussion relating to whether the trailer brakes may or may not have been functioning. If they were not functioning, that could not have been *** trailer brake mark. Um As far as the results of any analysis to that effect, I don't know the results of those. Okay. But just so we're clear there was other folks didn't work that. So call into question whether or not the trailer brakes were working at all and and then so if the trailer brakes aren't working and that's not *** trailer. Um So when somebody who showed you the picture of the flat tire, mark, staff Sergeant Stephen Wheeler and his staff sergeant wheeler in the chain of command, he was the commander of the car units. And what prompted him? Do you know what prompted him to bring you that photo? I don't know. Um when you viewed that the photo or *** photo similar to that you said um Was it immediately clear that that was *** hard work? Yes, it was. Why do you believe that you missed that? I was rushing to put out work product and made *** mistake. Um When you were writing up your report as to what all those marks represented, um were you looking at photographs of the scene as well? And when you were looking at those photographs, why didn't you become apparent to you at that point that you uh had misidentified that Mark? I can't provide *** good answer for that? Um You were called giving *** deposition in this case? during the course of that deposition. Um, or during the deposition, you were being honest, you're giving all the information as you believe true at that time. Yes. And in that deposition, I asked you that same question, why wasn't. So I'll show you someone we're talking about here. Why was it not immediately apparent to you that it was *** flat tire mark when you looked at it to write your report and make your diagram and your response was the only possibility that I can suggest again as I had already drawn my conclusion and I wasn't looking for the support of that photograph to say yes. This is in fact *** break mark. Like I just said, I was just looking for something that represented the impact the show of the mark. I was looking at once I was removed from the focused conclusion that I had going on page 19 that I had made that picture became much more obvious as to what it actually showed. Yes. So part of the problem or at least as you explained it in that deposition. The problem was while you were writing the report and looking at those photographs, uh, that you had already drawn *** conclusion about what that was, that was the possibility that I had put forward. Yes. Um, so when, when you were uh, describing some of the roadway evidence. Um, what was your conclusion as to the location of the truck. Initially, my initial conclusions were that the trucks first point of breaking where the truck's tires first locked up was after the initial impact, but approximately four ft uh, and change over the center line and that the trailers first point of breaking again, which may be erroneous, was about 1.33 ft over the center line. Okay, so, um, The, with respect to the location of the truck, 1.33 ft over the center line and the motorcycle, your initial conclusion was leaving *** break mark on the center line prior to the right. The trailer was 1.33 ft over the center line when it first left. Its break mark based on my initial conclusion. So, your position is that it was the truck or the trailer. That was 1.33. That was I believe my initial conclusion. If if I have said otherwise, I would have to to see that in the deposition, we had *** discussion about what type of collision you had initially described. And I was asking you, So, you yourself concluded that at the time of impact the truck was 1.33 ft into the opposing lane. You responded. That was the initial conclusion. Yes yeah, I believe what you're telling me is is what I have said. I believe there was some ambiguity over which vehicle is making which mark with the knowledge now that that trailer brake mark may have been caused by the truck. So there was some confusion there as to which vehicle we were talking about, but, well, The question was your you yourself concluded at the time of impact, the truck was 1.33 ft into the lane, and your response was yes yes, my response was yes, and I I asked you no longer stand by that and you said correct. That was my answer, Yes. Um and so the question then, was if the truck is 1.33 ft into the opposing lane and the motorcycle is leaving *** break mark on the center line. We are describing *** head on collision between *** truck and the motorcycle, correct, correct. Um And you um did you have any involvement with the crash investigation into the not direct involvement? No. Did you accompany them when they went to? Yes. And so you were able to see mr motorcycle? While I was able to see motorcycles, I couldn't identify which one was which um at some point, did you get *** chance to look at Mr. Meses most photographs of it? Um And I'm gonna show you husband Marcus defense is an h I recognize it as *** motorcycle. To identify it as Mr moses, I cannot say to you. You did see Mr My understanding is that this is the lead motorcycle, If that is mr moses motorcycle, then um readily apparent uh to you at least that this motorcycle was not involved in *** head on collision. Um, so while you, when you viewed, uh, or when you had *** chance to view that motorcycle and it became clear to you that the impact that you had initially described was not consistent with the damage to Mr motorcycle. Did you make any attempt to, you know, let other folks in the car? You didn't know that there was *** problem with the evidence at that point. I don't know that I ever classified what type of impact it was only that there was an overlap between the vehicles in the center line, but you would agree that what you described *** motorcycle leaving *** *** mark on the center line Just prior to impact in the truck, 1.3 ft over the center line, just prior to impact. What you're describing, there is *** head on collision, right? So whether you specifically characterize it as that or not, that's what you were describing I was describing distances, I wasn't making an analysis or doing *** reconstruction based off the collision of the events of the actual impact. Just drawing distances from the marks that were on my diagram. So, you were providing some analysis with respect to your Diagram quick. Um, and the analysis that you did provide was that the truck was 1.33 ft over. Yes, we gotta go. So just take *** quick step back to the car to you, you did provide some analysis in the case, right analysis that you provided. Uh was that the truck was 1.33 ft over the line and that the motorcycle was moving *** hey tire marks on the center line just before which was corrected to be no longer factual? Yes, we're talking about yes. So um what that represents is as you said, is *** head on collision. Right? But you're but you're saying that you you didn't reach that conclusion at the time. So you you had *** plus B but you didn't use it didn't reach the conclusion. See, I wasn't trying to reach *** conclusion with regards to that manner of impact. Okay. Do you, is it your practice to not evaluate your conclusions as to whether or not they make sense with the other evidence? No, it's not. Okay. So if you saw *** motorcycle that clearly wasn't involved in *** head on collision at 50 miles an hour, then you would you're saying that you wouldn't consider that when it comes to looking at what your conclusions were, that suggests that that that that head on collision occurred. If I had all the information available to me and my intention was to draw those conclusions. And absolutely, I would take that new evidence and the new investigation into account, but that fell outside the scope of what I was doing with mapping and diagramming and drawing conclusions based off the diagram and again, providing distances for other people to draw those conclusions. So it was outside of my scope of responsibility to make or correct those conclusions as far as mentor of impact and how it relates to the motorcycles. So are you suggesting that it's not your responsibility to ensure that the conclusions that you've reached are consistent with other evidence in the case they should be, they should be, but you're saying it's not your responsibility to ensure that I did not know what was done with my own analysis. So I didn't know if that analysis was was being used in *** manner to say that there was in fact *** head on collision, but you knew what you described, right? The the circumstances that I described certainly result in *** head on collision, but I was describing the circumstances, not what they would have resulted in. Nor was I thinking of what that result would be until you brought it up to me at that position. So even though your circumstances as you interpreted them represented *** head on collision, uh, and that the other evidence that you've used made obvious that there was no head on collision, you made no attempt to correct or rectify that? No, because I was only providing distance is not an interpretation of the manner of collision itself in the car unit. Um, if it becomes obvious to any member of the car unit that another member's interpretation or even the interpretation that you've provided. Uh, if it becomes obvious that it's no longer correct, what's, what do you do about that? If you're saying that you didn't do anything, what do you typically do about that? If I know that I or someone else has made *** mistake, it would get brought to that person's attention to be corrected. But that never happened in this case at some point your work and the and the work of the car unit and all of the case evidence. And this incident was turned over to *** private reconstruction where that And who was that? The crash crash lab produced *** *** report on their findings after that report was issued. That was when certain revisions to the car units analysis. That's all. Thank you. State may inquire Trooper quarterly, approximately how many crashes do you investigate *** year? It varies, but 20-30 is *** fair approximation. And when did you start in the car unit 2013 or 14? When I joined part time. So you're talking at the time you investigated this crash, you had investigated between 100 and 150 crashes, roughly roughly this was the most severe and significant case you would have ever investigated the most amount of damage? Yes. Most amount of carnage. Most amount of victims. Most amount of vehicles huge seen. Hundreds, thousands of pieces of individual pieces of evidence. There could have been, Yes. Okay. And you went scene by scene with that or excuse me through the scene, piece by piece with *** laser measuring device measuring roadway evidence, correct. Okay. Um and just to um just to talk for *** second here about the series of events you did your initial report and you had made your you had documented what those items were on the scene, You had your computer on you and you were characterizing what you were seeing in the moment and putting it into the computer and then that was being loaded up and then you go back and you're doing your analysis. You have the photographs but you also had the mapping information that you had through the computer system. Yes. So if you're looking at this, the computer is telling you this was documented as *** break mark. This was documented as *** hallmark. This was documented as *** screen, correct? No. The tire marks that I map are just marked as tire marks with the mapping code. Tm I don't distinguish between what I am looking at during the mapping process. *** flaw in the process. But you've been there, you've seen it on scene and you're documenting it in real time and then now you're looking at the data and things correct. And let's talk for *** moment about crash labs. Um So crash labs was hired by the state I believe so to review the card in its investigation to see if it was accurate. I don't know what the scope of what their work was. Okay. Was were you there for *** presentation that was made. I don't believe so. And after I think defense counsel just asked you after crash labs did the report you said that that's when it was brought to your attention that that tire mark was incorrect and after that did you issue any new reports to correct that? Okay so you did once Sergeant wheeler came to you showed you the picture and you realized your mistake, you corrected that mistake and if you had seen that mistake beforehand you would have corrected it one second. Any redirect just just real quick. Um when you reviewed that that mark in the photo with with Sergeant Wheeler and you issued your corrective report um that that report uh just corrected your classification of that mark as *** avoidance. Right? It didn't say um we now believe that this is *** flat tire mark and here are the other conclusions that I've reached based on my prior misidentification and I'm going to correct those two. No it did not correct those things. Trip reports. Just to be your role in this lead investigators assigned correct. That feels true for the lead investigator and everyone else had roles. Yes I was not responsible for any reconstruction or analysis. Just the diagram and the mapping. Yes thank you. Okay. Witness may be excused. Defense may call its next witness. The defense calls trooper Brandon George standing testimony this morning. Uh Thank you be seated. You can take the mask off if you're more comfortable wearing masks. Um True majority tell your employees. That is correct. What's your current position? My current position is, I am *** certified federal motor carrier safety inspector with the state police. I conduct commercial motor vehicle inspections and uh my name is Trooper Brandon Girardi. My last name is G. I. R. ***. R. D. I. I started with the state police in December of 2012 and I graduated from the 160 years police academy and conquered around April 2013. Uh since then I've been assigned to troop barracks. I formerly worked there for about three years working criminal patrol as well as conducting motor vehicles, violations and stops. Uh I attended the at seen traffic crash analysis course through the state police. Um From there I intended advanced at seen crash analysis as well as the reconstruction school and from that moment on I have been with state Police troop G conducting motor carrier inspections from that point. Um So did you ever work as *** member of the unit? I have. Yes In June 21, 2019. Were you called to the scene of *** motor vehicle accident in Randolph as part of the car unit? Yes, I was. Um And can you explain what your uh what you did when you as part of your work with the car unit at that scene. Initially when I was there, the intent for me was to work on the commercial motor vehicle aspect of it. Um, and I also took pictures and helped um I just helped identify some of the victims as well as the motorcycles that were on the scene. So uh photographing the scene and helping other investigators correct. You said you had initially, your response was as *** member of the g the federal motor carrier uh inspection unit. That's correct. That was the main reason why I was was asked to come to the scene because there was *** commercial motor vehicle involved that we believed. And so I primarily worked on um photographing that as well as identifying the vehicle and whoever the operator was at that point in time, um I shared that responsibility as well with *** with another trooper. Um It was uh, TFC Seth turner at the time and he worked on speaking with the actual motor carrier, not so much the vehicle itself. And at some point were you asked to participate in with the car unit, in documents seen and creating the car units final report. And what was your role in that? My role was the first time we've done this, uh we considered *** co lead, I shared responsibility with trooper Andrew Wolinsky who essentially took the the main lead of that. But since the collision occurred uh, near where I patrol, um, it was deemed me worthy for doing, you know, follow up in *** timely manner. So I conducted *** lot of the post crash inspection and as well as that did some scene recon and analysis and that's where we took *** lot of the photographs and tried to recreate the collision. Okay. So, uh, after you did all the documentation and all the work and analysis, the car unit uh, created *** final report on what they believe happened in this case. That's correct. Um, after that report was issued, um, the case was given to an outside agency to review that right to my understanding is that was *** private reconstruction firm crash lab. That's correct. Um, and then once that crash report was received, there was changes made to the report that the car unit. That's correct and that would involve the characterization of roadway markings and, and how that, that mischaracterization markets affected, you know, where the vehicles were at the time of um, at some point. Uh, did you go back out to the scene with Trooper Wolinsky? Oh, we did. Um, I can't remember the exact date and time. If you allowed me to look at my report, I could reflect on that. But we did, we did go back out there. That's okay. The specific date is not necessarily important. But at some point, what was the point of going back out there? Uh, the whole point of going back out there was to try to recreate the the event of the crash, like kind of rewind it in position. Um The main idea was to try to get an idea of point of perception and reaction time. Um did the jarheads have enough time to perceive Mr Zhukovsky vehicle and vice versa, that they have adequate time time to perceive each other, perceive that as *** threat and react to that threat. Can you explain how you did that? Uh we went to the area of the crash which was known um it was still marked out at that point and uh through time distance formulas and known known speeds, we were able to extrapolate, kind of like *** known distance in time, through through mathematical formulas and rewinding them to positions. And once you've established essentially where those vehicles would have been at those positions that you then go and try to identify whether or not the parties would have been able to see each other from those positions, so, for example, that at half *** second now you identify the spot and whether or not the vehicles to each other and then moving back away from each other. That's correct. We did it in one second intervals and we went to *** maximum five seconds away from the collision point of impact, one second apart, two seconds apart, correct. And as far as the distances are concerned, You were able to determine that uh with regards to Mr Masa and Mr Czajkowski being able to actually even see each other that that the parties would have been between 426 and 448 ft apart. Right? Would I be able to take *** look at my report just to reflect on that? Well, actually, I haven't specifically marked here and um you remember giving *** deposition? Um Yes, approximately 12 months ago in that deposition approach. Um So we're talking about this specific topic here, um and We have and I asked you, so at at 55 mph, somewhere between 426 and 448 citizens. Right? And you responded yes. So that represents the point at which the parties could have first began to see each other? That's correct. The distance be the maximum distance between the two of which they would have actually visualized each other. Okay. Um and then, uh but that doesn't mean that they would have been able to tell that uh impact between the two vehicles was may occur. That's correct. To my recollection, I believe, three seconds away from the collision would have been the first moment when Mr Zhukovsky and um Alma's would have been able to even even visualize each other. They still wouldn't have been able to perceive each other as *** imminent threat at that point. Okay, so um that's three seconds when they would be able to see each other, right? But not being able to determine when that there was *** potential threat. That is correct. And so you did some further calculations, uh, to determine at what point the parties would have been able to uh, determine that there may be an impact. It wasn't until two seconds away from the collision on on both persons ends when they would have actually been able to perceive each other is an imminent threat to one another. Okay, so that would be um uh I think uh Testified between 280 and 300 ft apart and with each party moving towards each other, they would have closed that distance and approximately. That's correct. Uh, and uh, we spoke at the deposition, I asked you if you believe that this at the point in which they could visualize each other if the impact was unaffordable, With the minimum time, there being two seconds. The the average human perception reaction, time to perceive *** threat and react to it is only 1.5, seconds. So it's *** it's *** very short amount of time for that to happen. And so you would agree that at the point in which they could see each other and determine that an accident was was about to occur, that there was it was unavoidable. The impact was unavoidable at that point. May I take *** look at my deposition, please? Well, I'd like you to answer and then, you know, it's different than what we can talk about that. In my opinion. I it was largely unavoidable based off the circumstances but depending on either party. We we know that they are there was possible impairment issues on both ends and that could have that could have skewed that time. That could have slowed or delayed their reaction time. You may. Mhm. Members of the jury, the witnesses, last statement regarding possible impairment on the part of any parties are stricken from the record. You're instructed to disregard that statement. What was your opinion that based on the timing that the uh the accent was by and large? It was largely unavoidable. Um So you uh work part of your job now and I guess at the time was was commercial vehicle inspections. That's correct. Um And that truck specifically did not require *** C. D. M. Right? No did not thank you. That's all statement Inquire that's good Trooper Girardi, you you also went out to the scene *** couple of days later, correct. That is correct. And took some videos. Yes. Now you're *** man approach. Yeah I'm gonna just show you once and then mark the I. D. S state's exhibit to 16 and ask if you recognize this video. What is the number 124 back. Is there audio accompanying? There is audio accompanying the video but we won't play the audio. Does that image accurately reflect the videos that you took on June 23, 1919. I recall taking the video, I just can't remember the premise of what we went out there to video. We're like, we're gonna wait published this to the journey so we can discuss that. Very good trooper Geraghty. This post crash inspection, highly detailed, correct. Yes. You're going through all the way down to the filaments in bulbs of brake lights. That's correct, correct. You looked at bikes to see whether or not they had something called hot shock. We checked. I mean pretty much soup to nuts, everything that we could when we were doing this. And there was 11 bulb in in particular that did display *** symptom of hot shock and what is *** hot shock occurs in an incandescent light bulb when there's *** tungsten filament that you can see when electrical current is passed through that filament, That film it becomes ductile or stretchy if you will and when ***, when *** strong enough forces acted upon that bulb, um that film, it will actually stretch. And this this phenomenon can actually only occur when the bulb is illuminated, which means there was power coursing through it at the time. Um if the bulb was not illuminated when there's an impact on the bulb, the filament could either break or it could not break at all. But that stretching incident is coined as hot shot and in this case Daniel Pereira Pereira motorcycle, correct. That is correct. And that was the only one that, that is the only one. There was *** lot of resources on this scene correct. State police resources investigators. Yes, laser measuring devices, yes, drones were brought out. Yes, that's correct. Um, and after you were confronted with the fact that, that what was initially coined an evasive motorcycle tire mark on the yellow line. Um, when you were confronted with that and shown that, hey, this may not be that. Um, you yourself concluded that that was *** flat tire mark, correct? That's correct. We could observe the scalloping and, and once we learned that it was not an evasive mark that we obviously you could see that it was *** flat tire mark. Okay. And because of that, the conclusion of state police of the car unit changed. Initially, you had the truck further, about *** foot and *** half into the motorcyclist lane. That's correct. And then after that, that moved the truck either close to the old liner on the old line at the point of impact. Um, this scene and we've heard *** lot about it. But from your specific perspective, was this an ordinary investigation or was this more than what you are normally responding to? This was absolute chaos. I mean, that's simply the only way I could put that from my personal opinion and my perspective, um, I have never encountered anything like this and I hope it would never happen again. But there was *** lot that occurred and you know, there was *** lot to deal with at the time. Thank you for joining and no further questions. Do you get anything further? Um given the, given the scope of the accident and the amount of evidence to collect, it's important to be pretty detail oriented, right? Yes. And to make sure that you're getting things right and not rush to judgment about either the characterization of marks or what happened. Right? That is correct. So you can identify relevant evidence and come to support. That's correct. Two more questions I forgot to ask about cross. How many how many have you investigated? Um *** couple dozen of serious ones that involve serious bodily injury or fatalities? Yes. Oh God. 100. All right, thank you for starting the witness. Be excused. You can step down, you're excused. Defense counsel. Have any additional witnesses to call today. Just making sure that's still the case. Anything for me, the party before I excuse the jurors for the day. Okay. Alright. So members of jury uh as I indicated yesterday I anticipated today would be *** short day because of witness availability or unavailability. We'll plan to resume at nine a.m. Monday morning. I expect it will be *** full trial day. We will endeavor to start on time again during the long weekend recess. Please do not discuss the case amongst yourselves with anybody else and please make every effort to avoid being inadvertently exposed to any information of any nature whatsoever having to do with this case from any source whatsoever. Cures are excused Have *** good weekend.