Date: Jun 4, 2026

DeOliveira v. Trecaso: Low-Threshold Authentication for Unedited Google Earth Images and No “Empty Chair” Inference from “No Experts” Argument Absent an Available Missing Witness

1. Introduction

In Julie DeOliveira et al. v. Greg Trecaso et al. (R.I. June 3, 2026), Julie DeOliveira and her daughter, Maxine DeOliveira, sought damages for injuries from a March 25, 2010 motor-vehicle collision on I-95 South in Cranston. The operative theory was negligence by truck driver Greg Trecaso. After service failures, Trecaso and his business were dismissed, leaving the insurer, Star Insurance Company, as the trial defendant. A jury found plaintiffs failed to prove negligence. Plaintiffs appealed, raising numerous evidentiary, argument, instruction, verdict-form, and new-trial issues. Star cross-appealed the denial of judgment as a matter of law, but the Supreme Court affirmed the defense verdict and therefore did not reach the cross-appeal.

The central practical disputes were (i) what caused the collision (lane-change by Julie versus lane encroachment by the truck), (ii) how the accident location related to plaintiffs’ “on-ramp entry” narrative, and (iii) whether the trial proceedings were infected by unfairly admitted evidence or improper advocacy.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Rhode Island Supreme Court (Long, J.) affirmed the judgment for Star and upheld the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial. The Court held, in substance:

The trial justice did not abuse discretion admitting portions of Trecaso’s videotaped deposition; objections largely went to weight, and several appellate theories were waived.
Objections to Trooper Hanley’s report/testimony were either waived (withdrawn or not preserved) or properly overruled.
Unedited Google Earth aerial photographs were adequately authenticated through Trooper Hanley under Rhode Island’s “slight” authentication burden; the out-of-state cases cited by plaintiffs were distinguishable.
Defense counsel’s opening/closing comments (including “physically impossible” and remarks about attacks on the trooper) were within fair comment on the evidence and cured by standard instructions that argument is not evidence.
A brief “expert witness” instruction did not mislead or prejudice plaintiffs when viewed in the charge as a whole.
The verdict sheet’s “was negligent” phrasing did not imply plaintiffs had to prove 100% negligence given the overall structure requiring proximate cause and allowing percentage apportionment.
Defense counsel’s statement that plaintiffs “called no experts” did not trigger the empty chair doctrine because there was no showing of an available missing witness whose absence warranted an adverse inference.
The trial justice applied the correct standard on the motion for a new trial, made supported credibility findings, and was not clearly wrong.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1) Appellate review standards (evidence; new trials; jury instructions)

Accetta v. Provencal, 962 A.2d 56 (R.I. 2009) (quoting State v. Merida, 960 A.2d 228 (R.I. 2008)) anchored the Court’s recurring refrain: evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be upheld unless “both prejudicial and irrelevant.” The Court used this framework repeatedly to reject challenges to deposition excerpts and to Trooper Hanley-related exhibits/testimony.
Botelho v. Caster's Inc., 970 A.2d 541 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Parrella v. Bowling, 796 A.2d 1091 (R.I. 2002)) and Mandros v. Prescod, 948 A.2d 304 (R.I. 2008) (quoting State v. Sivo, 925 A.2d 901 (R.I. 2007)) supplied the “instructions as a whole” lens and the prejudice requirement for reversal. These authorities drove the conclusion that the isolated expert-witness paragraph could not have misled an ordinarily intelligent jury.
Dextraze v. Bernard, 253 A.3d 411 (R.I. 2021) and Kazarian v. New London County Mutual Insurance Company, 331 A.3d 984 (R.I. 2025) (quoting Zarembka v. Whelan, 176 A.3d 485 (R.I. 2018)) defined the deference owed to a trial justice on a motion for a new trial. The Court relied on them to affirm where the trial justice articulated the correct standard, weighed evidence, and made credibility findings without overlooking material proof.

2) Preservation and waiver (“raise-or-waive” and shifting theories)

Cappuccilli v. Carcieri, 174 A.3d 722 (R.I. 2017) (quoting Thornley v. Community College of Rhode Island, 107 A.3d 296 (R.I. 2014)) was used to bar plaintiffs’ new appellate contention that Star failed to show Trecaso’s “unavailability” for deposition use. Because the trial-level challenge was framed as lack of personal jurisdiction (not Rule 32 unavailability), the new theory was waived.
E.T. Investments, LLC v. Riley, 262 A.3d 673 (R.I. 2021) reinforced that parties cannot change theories on appeal. The Court used it both for the deposition-unavailability reframing and for police-report objections that were withdrawn or not properly pressed.

3) Authentication of images and the “slight burden”

O'Connor v. Newport Hospital, 111 A.3d 317 (R.I. 2015) (quoting United States v. Reilly, 33 F.3d 1396 (3d Cir. 1994), and State v. Oliveira, 774 A.2d 893 (R.I. 2001)) supplied the key doctrinal tool: authentication requires only enough support to show it is “reasonably probable” the exhibit is what its proponent claims; the burden is “slight.”
DeOliveira applies this to unedited Google Earth aerial photos of a highway interchange—accepting authentication through a trooper familiar with the roadway, who testified the images accurately depicted the relevant area/time.
Plaintiffs’ reliance on United States v. Espinal-Almeida, 699 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2012), and Odom v. State, 383 So. 3d 322 (Miss. Ct. App. 2023), was rejected as inapposite because those cases involved more complex, data-derived or edited exhibits (e.g., GPS/location-data overlays). The Court emphasized the simplicity of the challenged exhibits here: “bare, unedited” aerial photographs.

4) Opening statements and closing arguments (“fair comment”)

Baker v. Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, 268 A.3d 1165 (R.I. 2022) (quoting Norlin Music, Inc. v. Keyboard "88" Inc., of Warwick, 425 A.2d 74 (R.I. 1981)) framed when argument becomes improper—i.e., appeals to passion/prejudice—and reiterated that reversal generally requires prejudice and the absence of curative instructions.
Avarista v. Aloisio, 672 A.2d 887 (R.I. 1996) (quoting State v. Byrnes, 433 A.2d 658 (R.I. 1981)) supported permitting counsel to preview evidence and theories in opening, which justified defense counsel’s “physical impossibility” theme as a forecast tied to anticipated proof about accident location.
State v. Boillard, 789 A.2d 881 (R.I. 2002) and State v. Mancini, 108 R.I. 261, 274 A.2d 742 (1971) supplied the “considerable latitude” standard and the “extraneous/inflammatory” limitation. This supported allowing defense counsel to argue both (i) impossibility grounded in the trooper’s location testimony and (ii) that plaintiffs’ cross-examination “attacked” the trooper—because credibility of one of the few key witnesses was central, not “extraneous.”
Brunswick Corporation v. Sposato, 120 R.I. 673, 389 A.2d 1251 (1978) supported the presumption that jurors follow instructions that lawyer argument is not evidence, further insulating the verdict from claimed advocacy improprieties.

5) Verdict-form review

Mangiarelli v. Town of Johnston, 289 A.3d 560 (R.I. 2023) guided the Court’s “read the verdict form as a whole” approach. Using that method, the Court found no risk that “was negligent” suggested 100% negligence was required, because later questions expressly required percentage apportionment.

6) Empty chair doctrine and missing witnesses

Retirement Board of Employees' Retirement System of State v. DiPrete, 845 A.2d 270 (R.I. 2004) (quoting Belanger v. Cross, 488 A.2d 410 (R.I. 1985)) supplied the controlling elements: an adverse inference requires an unexplained failure to produce an available witness expected to give material testimony.
Applying those cases, the Court held that saying plaintiffs “called no experts” (in the context of burden of proof) did not invoke empty-chair reasoning because there was no demonstration that plaintiffs had an available, identifiable witness they failed to produce.

7) “Nothing to review” principle

State v. Gautier, 950 A.2d 400 (R.I. 2008) was used to dispose of a claim where an objection was sustained; plaintiffs could not appeal the denial of their objection when the court had already sustained a co-counsel objection to the same question.

B. Legal Reasoning

Abuse-of-discretion discipline, not de novo re-trying. The Court treated most claims as classic trial-management rulings (admission of evidence; control of argument; instructions) and applied deferential review. This posture matters: plaintiffs needed to show not just “wrong,” but clear abuse plus prejudice.
Weight versus admissibility as the core evidentiary dividing line. Many objections attacked the reliability of a witness’s inference (e.g., Trecaso “didn’t see” the lane incursion; report narrative and statement). The Court repeatedly characterized this as “weight” for the jury rather than a categorical admissibility bar—particularly where plaintiffs cited no exclusionary rule.
Procedural rigor: waiver and withdrawn objections. The Court enforced preservation rules strictly:
- Arguments not made below (e.g., deposition “unavailability”) were waived.
- Objections withdrawn pretrial could not be revived by claiming they were “reserved.”
- Objections at trial must state the right ground; a “leading” objection does not preserve a later “improper credibility opinion” claim.
Authentication of unedited internet-sourced images can be straightforward. Relying on Rhode Island’s low authentication threshold, the Court approved using a familiar investigating trooper to authenticate static Google Earth images depicting roadway layout. The Court distinguished cases involving edited or data-driven overlays—implicitly signaling that “internet-sourced” does not automatically mean “expert-required.”
Argument boundaries are policed by (i) record tethering and (ii) instructions. “Physically impossible” was acceptable because it was linked to evidence about where the car was found relative to an on-ramp. Even if close to argumentative, the trial justice’s instructions that opening/closing are not evidence were treated as a powerful backstop.
Empty chair doctrine: “no experts” is not “missing witness.” The Court drew a sharp line between (a) commenting on plaintiffs’ burden and their choice not to present expert testimony and (b) asking the jury to infer that an available, uncalled witness would have been adverse. Only the latter triggers the doctrine’s prerequisites.
New-trial review: credibility findings are decisive when supported. The Court affirmed because the trial justice made explicit credibility determinations (Julie/Maxine not credible; 911 call of limited value), explained why, and concluded plaintiffs did not prove negligence by a preponderance. Under the deferential standard, that was enough.

C. Impact

Trial practice—Google Earth exhibits. The decision provides practical comfort that unedited Google Earth aerial images of a roadway can be authenticated through a witness with familiarity (e.g., an investigating trooper), without requiring a forensic technologist—so long as the proponent can show the exhibit is what it claims to be and the witness can ground that claim in personal familiarity.
Appellate practice—preservation precision. The opinion is a cautionary template: shifting theories (jurisdiction → unavailability) or withdrawing objections can be fatal on appeal, even when the underlying issue might have had arguable merit.
Closing argument—burden-of-proof rhetoric versus “empty chair.” Litigants may more confidently argue “they had the burden and called no experts” without triggering empty-chair constraints, unless they cross the line into claiming an identifiable, available witness was withheld and the required foundation exists.
Verdict forms—holistic reading controls. Challenges to isolated wording are unlikely to succeed when the form elsewhere makes comparative negligence/apportionment explicit and the instructions correctly explain the law.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Abuse of discretion: A highly deferential appellate standard: the trial judge’s decision stands unless it is clearly unreasonable and caused unfair prejudice.
Authentication (R.I. R. Evid. 901 concept; applied via case law): The proponent must show it is reasonably probable the exhibit is what it is claimed to be. The bar is “slight”—especially for straightforward photographs depicting familiar places.
Raise-or-waive: If a legal argument is not properly presented to the trial judge, it usually cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Similarly, an objection on one ground does not preserve a different ground.
Weight vs. admissibility: “Admissibility” asks whether evidence is allowed in; “weight” asks how believable or persuasive it is. Courts often admit evidence and let the jury decide weight through cross-examination and argument.
Empty chair doctrine: A rule allowing an adverse inference when a party fails to call an available witness expected to provide material testimony. It does not apply merely because a party called “no experts” unless an available, identifiable witness is shown to have been withheld.
Motion for a new trial: The trial judge reweighs evidence and credibility to decide if the verdict is against the fair preponderance of the evidence. On appeal, that decision is rarely overturned if the judge explains the reasoning and does not overlook material evidence.

5. Conclusion

DeOliveira is less about transforming negligence doctrine and more about reinforcing trial-law fundamentals with concrete applications: preserve objections with the right grounds, distinguish admissibility from credibility, and recognize the low authentication threshold for simple photographic exhibits—even when sourced from tools like Google Earth. The opinion also clarifies, in practical terms, that “no experts” burden-of-proof argument is not an empty-chair violation absent proof of an available missing witness. Collectively, these holdings strengthen predictability in Rhode Island civil trials by emphasizing disciplined preservation, deferential review of trial management, and pragmatic handling of common demonstrative evidence.