logo
Both sides rest, close after experts in Michael Carlson trial

Both sides rest, close after experts in Michael Carlson trial

Yahoo10-04-2025

WICHITA FALLS (KFDX/KJTL) — After experts took the stand for the prosecution and the defense, both sides rested and closed in the trial of a former Knox County sheriff, setting the stage for closing arguments on Thursday morning.
Michael Lloyd Carlson, 65, of Truscott in Knox County, faces a charge of manslaughter stemming from a three-vehicle crash on US 287 near Electra on May 17, 2023, that led to the death of 22-month-old Aveline Hill, of Dallas, at Cook Children's Hospital.
READ MORE: State rests case in trial of former Knox County sheriff
Carlson served as the sheriff of Knox County about 25 years ago, according to Knox County officials. Records show he was on probation for deadly conduct at the time of the fatal crash.
Testimony began on Tuesday, April 8, 2025, in the 78th District Courtroom, with Judge Meredith Kennedy presiding. The Wichita County jury of 10 women and 2 men was sworn in on Monday, April 7.
Lead prosecutor Chelsea Carlton called a handful of witnesses on Wednesday morning, April 9, 2025, including an expert in accident reconstruction, before resting the state's case. After the jury left the courtroom for lunch, Carlson invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify.
When testimony resumed Wednesday afternoon at around 1:15 p.m., Mark Barber, Carlson's defense attorney, called their own expert in accident reconstruction, Scott Linkletter, one of over a hundred available forensic experts with Aperture, LLC.
THE LATEST: Toddler's mother recalls fatal wreck in trial of Michael Carlson
Linkletter testified regarding looming, or a driver's perception of its closing speed as it approaches a vehicle rapidly. Looming is a term often used when describing rear-end collisions.
Linkletter testified that a looming threshold is the point at which a driver can perceive they're closing in on a vehicle too fast. He testified that for an average driver, the perception-reaction time is 2.1 seconds. He testified that, adding the time it took Carlson to apply the brakes, he determined Carlson's perception-reaction time was 2.7 seconds.
Linkletter testified that research shows that 85 percent of drivers fell within the percentile that Carlson fell into. He testified it takes some time for a driver to fully appreciate their closing speed if a vehicle is in front of them, especially on open roads, in free-flowing traffic, and rural areas.
Carlton then cross-examined Linkletter, who testified that while he's testified in several depositions, this trial was the first time he'd testified in court.
Carlton asked Linkletter why no more wrecks occurred at the same time if many more cars were behind Carlson. Linkletter testified that he had no specific answer. He testified that he had no idea what Carlson was doing in his pickup before the crash, and that he was not able to definitively if the looming effect occurred or if Carlson was distracted while driving.
'I don't have any opinions on whether he was or was not distracted,' Linkletter testified.
Before Linkletter left the stand, Carlton asked if a looming effect could occur if a driver was not looking at the road. Linkletter testified that it could not.
The prosecution then reopened its case and recalled James Evans, an expert in accident reconstruction who testified on Wednesday morning, to testify as a rebuttal witness.
Evans testified that most of the research on the looming effect has to do with driving at night because tail lights are the only real source of light for those driving after dark. He testified that research in that area doesn't really apply to driving in the daytime.
READ MORE: 1-year-old dies following three-car crash near Electra
Evans then testified that Linkletter didn't really calculate a perception-reaction time, but instead, just created a possible range. He testified that regardless of the range Linkletter testified to, there was still no evidence of Carlson reacting until less than a second before impact.
'Perception-reaction time and stopping depends on what you see and when you see it,' Evans testified.
Evans testified that most people can see and recognize when traffic is ahead of them on the highway, and that other drivers on U.S. 287 on May 17, 2023, were slowing down due to the detour ahead of them.
During cross-examination, Barber questioned Evans on the difference between looming in the daytime and at night. Evans testified that in the daytime, a driver has more visual cues than just tail lights to perceive.
Evans testified that he didn't know what Carlson was doing in the pickup before the crash, and that he wasn't aware of his state of mind at the time of the crash. He also testified that he wasn't speeding when the crash took place.
'All that time he was driving down the roadway, why did it take so long before he saw there was a problem?' Evans asked.
After cross-examination, Carlton indicated she had no further questions. Evans was excused from the witness stand. Carlton once again rested the prosecution's case, then closed it. Barber, on behalf of the defense, closed the case as well.
After Evans was again released from the stand, Carlton again closed the prosecution's case. Barber then closed the case on behalf of the defense.
Attorneys for the prosecution and the defense remained in the courtroom after the jury was dismissed in order to work on the charge that will be read to the 10 women and 2 men to begin proceedings on Thursday, April 10, instructing them on their deliberation.
After Judge Kennedy reads the charge, both sides will have the opportunity to make final arguments to the jurors, beginning with the prosecution, followed by Carlson's defense, and finished after the prosecution gets another opportunity to address the jury.
READ MORE: Texoma courtrooms busy during spring, summer months
After that, the jury will begin deliberating until a unanimous verdict is reached, either convicting Carlson of manslaughter or acquitting him of the charge.
If the jury finds Carlson guilty, the punishment phase of the trial will begin. Both sides will again present witnesses and evidence to the jury, followed by closing statements. The jury will again deliberate to determine Carlson's sentence.
Both Carlton and Barber indicated to Judge Kennedy on Wednesday afternoon that they expect to call a handful of witnesses in the punishment phase if Carlson is found guilty by the jury.
If convicted, Carlson faces up to 20 years in prison.Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

VIDEO: Police interview suspects in fatal robbery involving teens in Albuquerque
VIDEO: Police interview suspects in fatal robbery involving teens in Albuquerque

Yahoo

time2 days ago

  • Yahoo

VIDEO: Police interview suspects in fatal robbery involving teens in Albuquerque

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – KRQE News 13 is getting a look at what one of the teens involved in a fatal robbery in Albuquerque said to police after the incident occurred. It happened back in January, when a car full of teens tried to rob a couple, but the teens weren't the only ones armed, leading to one of them being killed. Story continues below News: Surveillance video captures crash involving off-duty officer that severely injured man Events: What's happening around New Mexico June 6-12? Albuquerque Pride Parade New Mexico Strange: Holy dirt and healing water: A look at NM's miraculous locations Jocelyn Sedillo, 16, spoke about what happened after hearing her friend, 14-year-old Alonzo Sanderson, had died. Police said back in January, he, along with 15-year-old Jeriah Salas, tried to rob a couple in a jeep at an apartment complex off Tramway Blvd. The driver of the Jeep opened fire, killing Sanderson. Police believe Salas shot the passenger who survived the attack. When asked about that night. He didn't have much to say, invoking the Fifth Amendment and asking for a lawyer. But Sedillo did shed some light on what happened. 'I don't know, we were all just drinking and chilling. I kinda blacked out, so I don't know what happened when we got to the apartments,' said Sedillo. She told detectives that eight teens, including herself, Sanderson, and Salas, were riding around Albuquerque in her car when she passed out in the backseat. 'And then all of a sudden, I hear Draco say 'I'm hit, I'm hit' and that's when everyone's like 'get Draco, get Draco' and so that's when we bring him in the car and he's like bleeding really bad. That's when I kinda like start sobering up and I'm like 'wait, what the **** just happened?' said Sedillo. The couple told police about the robbery attempt, who asked Sedillo if she remembered it. He left the teen with a final message before arresting her, a warning about thinking about her actions. Sedillo was sentenced to a year in juvenile detention on a conspiracy charge. The six other teens were charged with robbery. Jeriah Salas is also facing charges for shooting the passenger. All of them are being held on the charges. The Albuquerque Police Department ruled that Sanderson's death was justifiable, meaning the driver of the jeep will not face any charges. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Karen Read trial live updates: Can crash reconstruction expert help the defense?
Karen Read trial live updates: Can crash reconstruction expert help the defense?

Yahoo

time3 days ago

  • Yahoo

Karen Read trial live updates: Can crash reconstruction expert help the defense?

The second murder trial of Karen Read resumed Friday with testimony from a defense accident reconstruction witness, after the trial took a one-day pause due to sweltering heat in the Massachusetts court room. Daniel Michael Wolfe, an accident reconstruction expert, began testifying about his analysis of whether Read could have killed her Boston police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe with her car. Read's defense team has sought to prove that she was framed for the death of O'Keefe, who was found underneath the snow outside the home of another cop in January 2022 after the couple went out drinking one night with friends. Prosecutors say Read backed into O'Keefe with her Lexus SUV in a drunken rage after dropping him off at the home for a house party and then left him to die outside during a historic blizzard. She has been charged with second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. Discover WITNESS: Access our exclusive collection of true crime stories, podcasts, videos and more More: Karen Read trial: Prosecution rests its case after 6 weeks. What's next in the case? Earlier in the week, jurors heard from a woman who went to the bar with Read and O'Keefe the night before his body was found and a Canton, Massachusetts, snow plow driver who said he did not see O'Keefe's body in the yard of now-retired Boston Police Officer Brian Albert as he passed by the morning of Jan. 29, 2022. This is her second trial, after her first ended last year in a hung jury. Jury instructions filed by Read's lawyers suggest that the Massachusetts woman may not testify in the retrial. They include a section informing the jury of Read's Fifth Amendment right not to testify, telling them they 'may not hold that against her.' Christopher Dearborn, a law professor at Suffolk University in Boston who has followed the case closely, said the instructions are likely a 'harbinger' that Read's attorneys are not going to call her to the stand, though he noted that they could change their mind. 'Frankly, I don't think it would make a lot of sense to call her at this point,' Dearborn said, noting the number of public statements Read has made that could be used against her. The court has already heard from Read in the trial through clips prosecutors played of interviews conducted in which she questioned whether she 'clipped' O'Keefe and admitted to driving while inebriated. Dearborn told USA TODAY that there are two schools of thought around whether to include a section on a defendant's right not to testify in jury instructions. Some defense lawyers don't include the section because they don't want to "draw a bull's eye" around the fact that the defendant didn't testify and cause jurors to "speculate," Dearborn said. Other times, he said, its the "elephant in the room" and the specific instructions telling the jury they can't hold the defendant's lack of testimony against them are necessary. CourtTV has been covering the case against Read and the criminal investigation since early 2022, when O'Keefe's body was found outside a Massachusetts home. You can watch CourtTV's live feed of the Read trial proceedings from Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts. Proceedings began at 9 a.m. ET. Contributing: Christopher Cann, USA TODAY This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Karen Read trial updates: Defense turns to crash reconstruction expert

Karen Read trial live updates: Can crash reconstruction expert help the defense?
Karen Read trial live updates: Can crash reconstruction expert help the defense?

USA Today

time3 days ago

  • USA Today

Karen Read trial live updates: Can crash reconstruction expert help the defense?

Karen Read trial live updates: Can crash reconstruction expert help the defense? Show Caption Hide Caption Karen Read's second murder trial begins with new jury Karen Read is starting her second trial after being prosecuted for the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, last year. The second murder trial of Karen Read resumed Friday with testimony from a defense accident reconstruction witness, after the trial took a one-day pause due to sweltering heat in the Massachusetts court room. Daniel Michael Wolfe, an accident reconstruction expert, began testifying about his analysis of whether Read could have killed her Boston police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe with her car. Read's defense team has sought to prove that she was framed for the death of O'Keefe, who was found underneath the snow outside the home of another cop in January 2022 after the couple went out drinking one night with friends. Prosecutors say Read backed into O'Keefe with her Lexus SUV in a drunken rage after dropping him off at the home for a house party and then left him to die outside during a historic blizzard. She has been charged with second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. Discover WITNESS: Access our exclusive collection of true crime stories, podcasts, videos and more More: Karen Read trial: Prosecution rests its case after 6 weeks. What's next in the case? Earlier in the week, jurors heard from a woman who went to the bar with Read and O'Keefe the night before his body was found and a Canton, Massachusetts, snow plow driver who said he did not see O'Keefe's body in the yard of now-retired Boston Police Officer Brian Albert as he passed by the morning of Jan. 29, 2022. This is her second trial, after her first ended last year in a hung jury. Jury instructions filed by Read's lawyers suggest that the Massachusetts woman may not testify in the retrial. They include a section informing the jury of Read's Fifth Amendment right not to testify, telling them they 'may not hold that against her.' Christopher Dearborn, a law professor at Suffolk University in Boston who has followed the case closely, said the instructions are likely a 'harbinger' that Read's attorneys are not going to call her to the stand, though he noted that they could change their mind. 'Frankly, I don't think it would make a lot of sense to call her at this point,' Dearborn said, noting the number of public statements Read has made that could be used against her. The court has already heard from Read in the trial through clips prosecutors played of interviews conducted in which she questioned whether she 'clipped' O'Keefe and admitted to driving while inebriated. Dearborn told USA TODAY that there are two schools of thought around whether to include a section on a defendant's right not to testify in jury instructions. Some defense lawyers don't include the section because they don't want to "draw a bull's eye" around the fact that the defendant didn't testify and cause jurors to "speculate," Dearborn said. Other times, he said, its the "elephant in the room" and the specific instructions telling the jury they can't hold the defendant's lack of testimony against them are necessary. CourtTV has been covering the case against Read and the criminal investigation since early 2022, when O'Keefe's body was found outside a Massachusetts home. You can watch CourtTV's live feed of the Read trial proceedings from Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts. Proceedings began at 9 a.m. ET. Contributing: Christopher Cann, USA TODAY

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store