Skip to content
personpersonDavid CahillDavid CahillMassachusetts State Police lieutenant with patrol and fire investigation experience.← All People
Law enforcementMassachusetts State Police

David Cahill

Massachusetts State Police lieutenant with patrol and fire investigation experience.

321 lines·6 proceedings·4 mentions

About

David Cahill testified for the prosecution on Day 38 as a Massachusetts State Police lieutenant and firearms examiner. He described collecting shooting evidence at MIT and in Watertown and identified five MIT-related projectiles and 56 Watertown 9 mm casings as fired by the Ruger P95 recovered on Laurel Street. His findings connected evidence from the two shootings to the same weapon, not to a particular person firing it.

Before his testimony, the defense requested voir dire on the reliability of his anticipated opinions and sought postponement to prepare. The court allowed voir dire but decided to proceed, stating that admissibility depended on the foundation Cahill established. That exchange did not include a final ruling admitting his opinions.

On direct examination by Steven D. Mellin, Cahill explained his training, laboratory review procedures, and microscopic comparisons. He distinguished the Ruger casings from casings attributed to submitted police firearms. He acknowledged that deformation or insufficient markings can prevent identification, while maintaining that the MIT projectiles were identifiable.

On cross-examination by Timothy G. Watkins, Cahill said he had not received fingerprint reports and did not know whether comparisons had been made to either Tsarnaev brother. He clarified that 16 rifle casings included in the police total came from a separate incident four blocks away. He agreed that officers fired at the passing Mercedes but could not match its 32 recovered projectiles to police weapons. Casing locations indicated general officer positions, not firing directions. The examination did not establish the source of Richard Donohue's injury, and the court barred a proposed inference about where an officer's missed shot would land.

On redirect, Cahill explained that casings can be lost, carried away in vehicle tires, or collected as souvenirs. These were possible explanations, not findings that particular casings had been removed. He separately confirmed that a projectile recovered inside a Watertown police cruiser had passed through its windshield and matched the gun recovered at the scene.

Trial Record (6)

2015 Trial2015 Federal TrialJan 5, 2015 – Jun 24, 2015Called by prosecution

David Cahill linked five MIT-related projectiles and 56 Watertown casings to the recovered Ruger P95 through firearms examination. On cross-examination, he acknowledged limits in fingerprint knowledge and gunfire reconstruction, including his inability to match projectiles from the Mercedes to police weapons.

Day 35

Day 38

DirectDavid Cahill — Direct ExaminationDavid CahillSteven D. Mellin2highlightsMentioned240lines spoken

Summary

Cahill identified five MIT-related projectiles and 56 Watertown casings to the recovered Ruger, distinguishing the casings fired by police weapons.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (2)

testimony highlightCahill testified that test-fire comparisons led him to identify all 56 recovered Watertown 9 mm casings as fired by the Ruger P95.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightWhile discussing deformed autopsy projectiles, Cahill stated that all five MIT-related projectiles were identified to the weapon recovered in Watertown. He then acknowledged that insufficient markings can prevent identification in other cases.Open in transcript →
CrossDavid Cahill — Cross-ExaminationDavid CahillTimothy G. Watkins1highlight71lines spoken

Summary

Cahill described police gunfire and forensic limits; the court barred a speculative inference about a shot missing the fleeing Mercedes.

Highlights (1)

testimony highlightCahill confirmed recovery of 32 projectiles from the Mercedes SUV but could not match them to police weapons. He nevertheless agreed that officers shot at the vehicle as it passed and that its damage was consistent with the reported route and officer locations.Open in transcript →

Day 43