Ma Appellatecourts.org

COMMONWEAljTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDlClAL COURT ESSEX, SS.

SJC No. 10250

COMMONWEALTH, Appe 11. ee, V.

STUART MERRY, Defcndant/Appellant.

ON RESERVATION AND REPORT BY THE SINGLE JUSTICE REGARDING THE DENIAL OF MOTIONS FOR A REQUIRED FINDING OF NOT GUILTY A N D MOTION TO DISMZSS ENTERED IN THE PEABODY DISTRICT COURT

BRIEF OF DEFENDANT/APPELLANT STUART MERRY

Neil Rossman, E s q . BBO#43062U ROSSMAN & ROSSMAN Two Hundred State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 439-9559

Carlene A. Pennell, Esq. BBO # 631175 LAW OFFICE OF CARLENE A. PENNELL

86 Leavitt Street Hingham, MA 02043 (781) 556-5370 August 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

............................

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

A. €3

.

Cases

iv

................................

iv

....................

vi

OLher Authorities

ISSUES PRESEN'I'b:L, ................................

1

...........................

1

..........................

1

.....................

5

Ere-Trial Invcstigation By The Essex D.A.':; Office ....................

5

STATEMEN'I' OF T I E CASE

Prior Proceedings

Statemcnt of the FacLs

A. B

.

C.

0

.

E.

Pre-Trial InvestiyaLion By The Suffolk D.A.'S O f f i c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The T r i a l

.............................

..........

7

1.

The Commonwealth's

2.

The Defendant's Case

.............

12

3.

The Commonwealth's Rebuttal. . . . . . .

13

4.

C l . o s i n g Arguments

................

15

Post-Trial Motior.is

Case

....................

The Heariny On May 6. 2008

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMbtNT

............

..........................

1

/

1'1 19 20

ARGUMENT I.

.........................................

22

THE DEFENDANT' S RE-TRIAL FOR MO'rOR VEHICLE HOMICIDE I S BARRNI) ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY P K I N C I P L E S WHERE THE COMMONWEALTH PRODUCED I N S U F F I C I E N T EVIDENCE O F "OPERATION," AND i'rs OWN EXPERT M E D I C A L WITNESS AND A C C J U E N T RECONSTRUCTIONIST AGREED THAT TIIE DEFENDAN'I' PKESENTED "A VIABLE 'THEORY" THAT HE SUk'EERED A MEDICAL EMERGENCY RENDKKJNG IIIM UNABLE TO CONTROL H I S CAR AND THEY COULD NOT F I N D ANY OTHER EXPLANATION FOR THE CAUSE. O F THE ACCIDENT

....................................

A. B.

C.

The S t a n d a r d Of R e v i e w

..................

'The A l l e g e d l y "Spidered" W i n d s h i e l d A n d T h c B l o o d And S a l i v a O n T h e A i . r b a y C a n n o t B e C o n s i d e r e d I n Thj.s C o u r t ' s R e v i e w O f T h e S u f f i c i e n c y Of T h e E v i d e n c e ..............................

.....

1.

T h e D a m a g e T o T h e Windshie1.d

2.

T h e B l o o d And S a l i v a O n T h e A i r b a g ...........................

21

25

25

26

A Medical Kvent, S u c h As A S e i z u r e , P r e c l u d e s A F i n d i n g O f Negligencc A n d Amounts T o A F a i l u r e O f l'roof On A n E s s e n t . i . a l E l e m e n L O f Motor V e h i c l c H o m i c i d e By Negligent O p e r a t i o n

29

T h e Kvidence R e g a r d i nq " O p e r a t i o n " E q u a l l y Supported D c l e n d a n t ' s T h e o r y , A n d T h e r e f o r e , I l i s M o t i o n s k'or A R e q u i r e d F i n d i n g O f Not G u i l t y Should Have Been A l l o w e d .....................

32

.......

D.

22

1.

2.

S p e e d i n y and C r o s s i n q Yellow L i n e ............................. T h e B l o o d And Saliva On A i r b a g

ii

33

. . _3 4

3.

11.

E v i d e n c e T h a t U e f o n d a n t . ' ~C a r T u r n e d Sharply B e f o r e A c c i d e n t

. . _37

E.

D e f e n d a n t ' s T h e o r y Is E q u a l l y Reasonable A n d Has A S u b s t a n t i a l F a c t u a l B a s i s Tn T h e E v i d e n c e . . . . . . . . . 3 9

F.

The I n a b j l i t y T u C o r r o b o r a t e T h r o u g h Medical T e s t s T h a t D e f e n d a n t S u f f c r e d A S e i z u r e O r Medical E m e r q e n c y Does Not A i d T h c C o m m o n w e a l t h ' s B u r d e n Of Provinq O p e r a t i o n Heyond A R e a s o n a b l e Doubt .................................

THE COMPLAIN'I' SHOULD BE DISMrSSED FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WIIERE THE 'TRIAL PKOSECUTOR VIOLAI'ED ETIIICAL RULk 3 . 8 (j) OF THE S . J . C . ' S HUT,ES O F PROFESSTONAL CONDUCT, AND HE FORCED TIIE DEFENDAN'I' INTO MOVING FOR A MTSTRIAL BY MAKlNG IMPROPER ARGUMENTS I N HIS CLOSING ABOUT WINDSHIELD DAMAGE, BLOOD AND SALIVA WHICH WEHb: NOT BASED ON ANY SUPPORTINti b'ACTS OR EXPER'I' O P I N I O N S AFTE:k HF: INTENTIONALIfY AVOIDED ELICI'I'LNG ANY TESTIMONY AHOIJT THESE SUBJECTS DURING THE.: E N T I R E T R I A L ................................

CONCLUSION

......................................

ADDENDUM CERT1F:I:CATION O F COUNSEL RECORD A P P E N D I X (Hourid S e p a r a t e l y

I

-

Two V o l u m e s )

42

44

49

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES A.

Cases

Altman v. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588 (1919)

........................

Atlas T a c k Corp. v. Donabed, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 221 (1999)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Aucella v. Commonwcalth, 406 Mass. 415 (1990) ........................ Berry v. Commonwealth, 393 M ~ S S .793 (1985) ........................

Callahan v. Lach, 338 Mass. 233 (1958)

3 0 , 31

........................

29, 31 23, 24, 43 31

Colucci v. Hosen, Goldberg, S l a v e t , Levenson & Weks.Lein, P . C . , 25 Mass. App. Ct. 107 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Commonwealth v . Albert, 310 Mass. 811 (1942) ........................

25

Commoriwealth v. Arroyo, 442 Mass. 135 (2004) ........................

47

Commonwealth v. B u r k c , 6 Mass. App. Ct. 697 (1978)

29

.................

Commonwealth v. Cardenuto, 406 Mass. 450 (1990) ........................

49

Commonwea1t.h v. CroLt, 345 Mass. 143 (1962) ........................

21, 2 5

Commonwealth v . Funches, 379 Mass. 283 (1979) ........................

25

Commonwealth v. Ginnetti, 400 Mass. 181 (1987) ........................

30

iv

Commonwealth v. Gordon, 422 Mass. 81.6 (19Y6) ........................

27 n.10

Commonwealth v. Kirouac, 405 M a s s . 557 (1989) ........................

25

Commonwealth v. Latimurc, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) ........................

23

Commonwealth v. Maridile, 403 Mass. 93 (1988) .........................

23, 39

Commonwealth v. Manning, 373 Mass. 438 (1977) ........................

48, 49

Commonwealth v. Murchison, 392 Mass. 273 (1984) ........................

48

Commonwealth v. 0' R r i e n , 305 Mass. 393 (1940) ........................

23-24

Commonwealth v. Rice, 427 Mass. 203 (1998) ........................

27 n.10

Commonwealth v . Silva, 366 Mass. 402 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

Commonwealth v. [ J s k i , 263 Mass. 22 (1928) .........................

30

Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cusk. 295 (1850) ..........................

24

Corson v. Commonwealth, 428 Mass. 193 (1998) ........................

2 3 , 38-

39, 43 F:l.lingsgardv . Si l.ver, 352 Mass. 34 (196'7) .........................

31

In re Wj.nship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)

23

.........................

V

McGovcrn v . Tinglof, 3.14 Mass. 114 (1962)

........................

Orcgon v . Kennedy, 456 U . S . 667, 676 ( 1 9 0 2 )

B.

....................

31

48

Other Authorities

KuIe 3 . 8 ( j ) u f thc S . J . C . ' s R u l e s o f ProLcssional Conduct, Entitled " S p e c i a l Responsibilities of a P r o s e c u t o r " . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6

Comment 1 to H u l e 3.8 of Lhe S.J.C.'s Rules of Professional CuriducL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

THE ISSWS PRESENTED I.

WHETHEH DOIJBLE JEPOARDY BARS DEFENDANT' S RE-TRIAL FOR MOTOR VEHICLE IIOMICIDE W H K H E THE COMMONWEALTH PHODUCED I N S U F F I C I t;NT EVIDENCE OF "OPERATION" BECAUSE THE L V I DENCE SUPP0R'I'k:U TWO EQUALLY LIKELY AND REASONABLE HYPOTHESES, AND T H E COMMONWEALTH'S TWO t:XPERT WITNESSES AGREED THAT DEFb:NDANT PRESEN'I'ED "A VIABLE MEDICAL THEORY" THAT HE WAS UNABLE: TO CON'I'ROL 1-11s CRUISER U[JE TO A MEDICAI. EMERGENCY AN13 THERE WAS NO OTHER EXPLANAYION FOR THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT?

T I

WHETHER THL COMPLAINT SHOULLI R E D I S M I S S E D FOR PROSECU'I'OKIAL MISCONDUC'I' WHERE THE PROSh;CIJTOR VIOLATED RULE 3 . H ( j ) O F THE S . J . C . ' S RULES OF PHOFESSIONAL CONIXJCT, AND HE FORCED THE DEFENIIANT INTO MOVING FOR A MISTRIAL ny MAKING IMPROPER COMMENTS I N HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT ABOUT WINDSHIELD DAMAGE, BLOOD ANI.) SALIVA WHICH WERE NOT BASEI) ON ANY SUPPORTING FACTS OR EXPERT O P I N I O N S BECAUSE IIE INTENTIONALLY AVOIDKD E L I C I T I N G ANY TESTIMONY AROIJT THESE SUBJEC'I'S DURING THE b:NTIRE T R I A L ?

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Prior Proceedings

I n 7 0 0 7 , t h e D e f e n d a n t ( a p o l i c e o f f i c e r ) was c h a r g e d i n P e a b o d y I I i s t r i c L C o u r t w i t h motor v e h i c l e h u m i c i d e by n e g l i g e n t o p e r a t i o n . ' Attorney's

T h e Esscx District

O f f i c c s u b s e q u e n t i y t r a n s f e r r e d t h e case t o

T h e c h a r y e s stemmed f r o m a n accident in B e v e r l y , M a s s a c h u s c t t s , on J a n u a r y 2 0 , 200'7. T h e defense t h e o r y was t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t s u f f e r e d a m e d i c a l emergency i m m e d i a t c l y p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t L h a t c a u s e d h i m t o slump over i n t h e p a s s e n g e r ' s s i d e of h i s c r u i s e r a n d r e n d e r e d 1ii.m u r m b l e t o c o n t r o l h i s

car.

1

a s p e c i a l prosecutor i n Suffolk County because i t

perceived a p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t of interest.

(R.A.

9 9 3 ) .2

On March 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s t . h r e e - d a y j u r y t r i a l corrtmenced i n Feabody D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( H r e n n a n , J., presidinq).

(R.A.

The DefenclanL moved f o r a

168).

r e q u i r e d f i n d i n g of n o t g u i l t y aLLer t h e c l o s e o f Lhe Commonwealth's c a s e - i n - c h i e f D e f e n d a n t ' s case ( K . A .

(R.A.

1074), a f t e r t h c

780), a n d a f t e r t h e

Commonwealth's r e b u t t a l c a s e ( R . A . moLions were d e n i e d o r a l l y .

1102).

All t h r e e

( A d d . y3-11, 12-19,

20-26,

respectively). The D e f e n d a n t a l s o moved, u n s u c c c s s f u l l y ,

for a

The R e s e r v a t i o n a n d R e p o r t i d e n t i f i e d t h e r e c o r d f o r Lhe f u l l C o u r t a p p e a l a s : ( 1 ) t h e D c i e n d a n t ' s P e t . i t7i.on, memorandum a n d s u p p o r L i n g e x h i b i t s ( w h i c h c o n t a i n t h c L r i a l t r a n s c r i p t s ) ; ( 2 ) t h e Commonwealth's o p p o s i - t i v n Lo t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s P e t i t i o n ; a n d ( 3 ) t h e R e s e r v a t i o n and KeporL. T h e r e f o r e , the Record Appcndix i s c o m p r i s e d o f t h e s e t h r e e s e t s o f dncumenks [page a n d e x h i b i t s , and s h a l l b e c i t e d h e r c i n as " H . A . number] ." Thc Addendum s h a l l b e c i t e d a s "Add. [ p a g e number] ." The D e f e n d a n t Lhen f i l e d a M o t i o n t o Kxpand t h e R c c o r d t.o i n c l u d e t h e t r a n s c r i p L o f t h e a r g u m c n t beforc the Single Justice. befendant att.ached t h e t r a n s c r i p t t o t.haL p e n d i n g mot-ion, and ci t a t i u r i s n Lheret.0 shall be a s follows: "SJ T r . / [ p a y c n u m b e r ] .

2

It1

stria1 (see Add.27-2

i e n t h o prosecutor

impropcrly argued during his c l o s i n g Lhat, based on the purportedly “spidered windshield” and the b1.ood and saliva drops on the airbag, “we know” t.he DefenclanC was sitting up at. impact because ”a person

having a seizure does riot s i L up.” (R.A. 9 3 2 - 9 4 0 ) . T h e j u r y began deliberations on March 19, 7008,

and later that same day, asked to he reinstructed on “reasonahle d o u b C . “

(R.A. 972). O n March 20, 2000,

the jury returned

yuilty verdict on the charged

offense. 3 ( R . A .

981).

On March 27, 7 0 0 8 , the Defendant filed a timely post.-trial Motion for a Required Finding of Not. Gui 1t y, o r in thc Alternative, a Motion Tor a New Trial

(

2 S ( b ) (2

Motion”), p u r s u a n t L o Mass. R. Crim. P.

.

(R.A.

54-147).

w e o k s a f t e r t h e trial

-

On April 30, 2008

-

six

Lhe Commonwealth servcd its

Seventh Notice of Discovery on 11efend;lrit (“Discovery

-

’ Uefendant

was subsequently scriLenced to three years

of probation with certain other terms a n d conditions.

3

Not

2"

1

h

Disc

iC

il

h e C mmor ZalLh

d i s c l o s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e t h a t S e r g e a n t Deborah

Ryan, i t s s t a t e p o l i c e a c c i d e n t r e c o n s t u c t i o n i s t ,

held

a m a t c r i a l and e x c u l p a t o r y o p i r i i u n t h a t t h e w i n d s h i e l d

damage was n o t c a u s e d b y t h e U e f e n d a n t ' s kcad a n d t h e r e was

e v i d e n c e h e was s i f t - i n g u p a L t h e t i m e o f

110

impact, which d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t . e d a c e n t r a l a r g u m e n t made h y t h e p r o s c c u t o r i n h i s c l o s i n g .

(R.A.

992).

On May 6 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e t r i a l . j u d g e held a h e a r i n g D e f e n d a n t ' s Mution,

or1

a t whi.ch t i m e h e y r a n t e d t h e

D e f e n d a n t a n e w t r i a l b a s e d on t h e u n d i s c l o s e d e x c u l . p a t o r y e v i d c n c e i n t h e r)i s c o v e r y N o t i c e , b u t denied t h e Defendant's

renewed rnoLion f o r a r e q u i r e d

f i n d i n g of n o t g u i l t y .

(R.A.

1168-1169; A d d . 3 0 - 3 6 ) .

On May 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e Deferidant f i l e d a P e t i t i o n for Relief,

P u r s u a n t to M . C . L .

("Petition"),

c. 211, 53

s e e k i n g t o h a r Deicndant's

re-trial

on

doublc j e o p a r d y g r o u n d s , o r a l t e r n a t i v e l y , s e e k i n g t o d i . s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t b e c a u s e oi Lhe p r o s e c u t o r ' s

e g r e g i o u s m i s c o n d u c t a n d forcinq Deferidant i n t o moviny

4

for

bv

ll

3

11

i

i n a p p r p r i te a n d

c o m p l c L c l y u n s u p p o r t e d a r g u m e n t s d u r i n g h i s closjn g .

(R.A. 1 - 2 0 ) .

The S i n g l e Justice

( C o r d y , J.) h e l d a

h e a r i n y on D e f e n d a n t ' s P e t i t i o n on J u l y 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 ,

at

which t i m e h e c a l l e d L h i s m a t t e r "a very closc c a s e . " (SLJT r .

2 ) . J u s t i c e Cordy s u h s e q u e n L l y r e s e r v e d a n d

r e p o r t e d t h i s maLter t o t h e full C o u r t .

(R.A.

1279).

STATEMENT O F THE FACTS A.

Pre-trial Investigation by Essex D.A.'s

Office. A p r o s e c u t o r f r o m Essex C o u n t y was o r i q i n a l l y

a s s i g n e d t h i s case ( " E s s c x P r o s e c u t o r " )

.

T h e Essex

P r o s e c u t o r i n t e r v i ewed S e r g e a n t DeLect.ive Dehorah R y a n , a M a s s a c h u s e t t s StaLe T r o o p e r who w a s t h c

Commonwealth's a c c i d e n t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s L .

(R.A 9 9 4 ) .

S e r g e a n t Ryan t.old t h e Essex P r o s e c u t o r t h a t she d i d n o t see a n y d a m a y c t o t h e w i n d s h i e l d c o n s i s t e n t . w i t h t h e Defendant's

(R.A.

head s t r i k i n y i L d u r i n g t h e a c c i d e n t .

994). S i n c e t h e a c c i d e n t . o c c u r r e d i n Esscx C0unt.y a n d

t h e DefendanL was a p o l i c e o f f i c e r w i t h i . n t h a t c o u n l y ,

thc E s s e x D i s t r i c t ALLorney's office subscquent.1.y

5

d e t e r m i n e d , s u a sporilc, t h a t a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t r e q u i r e d t h a t a s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r f r o m S u f f o l k County he a s s i y n c d

("Lrial p r o s e c u t o r " )

.

(R.A. 9 9 3 , n . 1).

However, t h e E s s e x P r o s e c u t o r does rioL r e c a l l r e l . a y i n q S e r q e a n t Kyan's h i g h l y exculpaLory and m a t . e r i a 1 o p i n i . o n t o t h e t r i a l p r o s e c u t o r when t.he c a s e w a s transferred,

n o r d i d t.he Gssex P r o s c c u t o r d i s c l o s e

t h i s exculpat-ory evidence t o t h e Defendant b e f o r e t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e case.

B.

(H.H.

9Y4).

Pre-trial Investigation by Suffolk D . A . ' s Office

'The t - r i a l p r o s e c u t o r c l a i m s t h a t when he s p o k e t o S e r g e a n t Ryan p r i o r t o t r i a l , h e d i d not. a s k h e r t.he d i r e c t q u e s t i n n w h e t h e r Lhe damage t o t h e l l e f e n d a r i t ' s w i n d s h i e l d w a s c a u s e d by h i s h e a d s t r i k i n y i L . 993,

1196-1197).

Instead, t h e t r i a l prosccutor

alleges t h a t during h i s only p r e - t r i a l S e r g e a n t Ryan,

(R.A.

di.scussion with

he " m e n t i o n e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d t h e

damaye Lo Lhe w i n d s h i e l d anti t h c b l o o d f o u n d o n t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e a i r b a g were t h e b e s t e v i d e n c e t h a t the d e f e n d a n t had n o t had a s e i z u r e . " 4

4

(K.A. 993).

T h i s s t a t e m e n t p r o v e s the L r i a l p r o s e c u t o r p l a n n e d h i s t h e o r y f o r h i s f i n a l argument p r i o r t o t r i a l , and y e t , a s a r g u e d i n f r z l aL p p . 4 4 - 4 9 , h e i n t e n t i o n a l l y ( C o n t ' d t o next page)

6

S e r g e a n t Ryan r e s p o n d e d t h a t " t h e b l o o d i s y o u r b e t t e r argument."

The t r i a l p r o s e c u t o r d i d n o t a s k

(Id.).

S e r g e a n t Ryan t o e x p l a i n what s h e meanl b y h e r comment, n o r d i d h e a s k h e r a n y f u r t . h e r q u e s t i u r i s Lo

d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e was a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t ~

was s i t t i n g up a t the L i m e o f t h e c r a s h o r w h e t h e r t h e damage t o t h e w i n d s h i e l d was c a u s e d b y t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s h e a d o r body s t r i k i n g i t . 5 ( I d . ) .

The Trial

C.

1.

The

COllUtlfJI2Wed1th'S

Case.

On J a n u a r y 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e D e f e n d a n t awoke at 5 : 3 0 a.m. a n d g o t r e a d y f o r work a s a B e v e r l y P o l i c e Officer.

H c aLe b r e a k f a s t , v i s i t e d h i s g i r l f r i e n d a t

h e r w o r k , and t . h e n went t u yeL c o f f e e .

51G).

Between 6:45 a.m.-8:15

a.m.,

(R.H.

514-

t h e Defendant

i n t e r a c t e d a t various locatioris with s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t p o l i c e o f f i c e r s w i t h whom h e worked. 474-476,

492-493, 505-506).

(H.A. 4 0 9 - 4 1 1 ,

During these i n t e r a c t i o n s ,

avoided a s k i n g any w i t n e s s about t h i s evidence and scrupu1,ously a v o i d e d Lhis t h e o r y d u r i n g his opening argument and throughout t h e e n t i r e L r i a l . The D e f e n d a n t d o c s n o t c o n c e d e t . h a t t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r h e was u p r i g h t o r slumped o v e r a t t . h e moment Such o f impacl i s d i s p o s j t i v e o f a m e d i c a l emergency. a c o n d i t i o n c o u l d h a v e o c c u r r e d r e g a r d l e s s o f wheLher I t i s only material because h e was u p r i g h t o r n o t . t.he p r o s e c u t o r t o l d t h e j u r y t h a t " . . a person (K.H. 9 4 0 ) . h a v i n g a s e i z u r e d o e s r'ioL s i t u p . "

.

I

t h e Defendant appeared f i n e ,

f r i e n d l y and r e l a x e d , and

e x h i b i t e d h i s normal demeanor.

(Id. )

~

M i n u t e s b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t . , t h e DefendanL s t o p p e d

a t a Seven-Eleven t o g e t a f o u n t a i n d r i n k , which h e s u b s e q u e n t l y p l a c e d i n h i s c r u i s e r ’ s cup h o l d e r . 516-517).

A t a b o u t 9:20 a.m.

(R.A.

t h a t morning, t h e

DefendanL was i n h i s cruiser when i L s u d d e n l y a n d r a p i d l y a c c e l e r a t e d t.o a b o u t 52-55 m i l e s a n h o u r i n 30-miles-an-hour (R.A.

331-32,

LI

zone on Cabot S t r e e t i n B e v e r l y , MA.

5’15, 595,

627-618).

In f a c t , d u r i n g t h e

3 1 . 4 seconds immediately b e f o r e t h e c r a s h ,

Lhe

a c c e l e r a t o r i n D e f e n d a n t ’ s cruiser was d e p r e s s e d a t 98% a n d d r o p p e d down t o 93% in t h e l a s t .2 s e c o n d s , a n d t h e t h r o t t l e w a s open a f u l l 1 0 0 % .

(R.A.

604, 6 2 6 ) .

For

the f i r s t 3 . 4 s e c o n d s oL Lhat 1 1 . 4 - s e c o n d p e r i o d , t h e b r a k e pedal. l i q h t was on.

However, it t h e n r e m a i n e d

o f f f o r t h e f i n a l 8 s e c o n d s , and there was no evi.dent-.e

of any b r a k i n g e v e n t p r i o r t o impact.

(R.A. 606-609).

T h e UefendanC’s c r u i s e r c r a s h e d into a p a r k e d c a r , k i l l i n g t h e s o l o occupant., Bonnie Burns. 272-2’13).

(R.A.

213,

The Commonwealth’s own w i t n e s s e s p r o v i d e d

c o n f l i c t . i n g t e s t i m o n y as t o w h e t h e r t h e DeLcndant‘s c a r d r o v e i n a s t r a i g h t l i n e i n t o t h e p a r k e d c a r (see K.A.

8

334-335,

3 4 6 - 3 4 9 ) , or w h e t h e r i L made a s h a r p a n d

sudden t u r n r i g h t b e f o r e c r a s h i n g (see H.A. 2-12, 275,

304).

F r e d e r i c k B l a k e Kelsey, an eyewiLness w i t h a

c l e a r , continuoil:; and u n o b s t r u c t e d view of D e f e n d a n t ' s

car b e f o r e , d u r i n g a n d a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , p r o v i d e d

uncontradicted t e s t i m o n y t h a t there was n o d r i v e r behind the wheel when i t p a s s e d r i g h t i n f r o n t o f him

only 20-30 f e e t away r i g h t b e f o r e t h e c o l l i s i o n . 332-334,

351)

.

(R.A.

Moreover, Sergeant. Ryan f o u n d no

e v i d e n c e w h a t s o e v e r t h a t t h e c a r s t e e r e d o u t o f t h e way

o r attempt-ed in any way t o a v o i d t h e c r a s h (see K.A. 63.7-618), and t h e r e f o r e , t h e p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e c o n t r a d i c t e d t h e Lcstimony o f H e a t h e r Swan a n d Amy

Munoz t h a t t h e c r u i s e r t u r n e d s h a r p 1 y h e f o r e i m p a c t . 6 The UefendariL was u n c o n s c i o u s i r m i c d i a t e l y a f t e r thc a c c i d e n t , a n d his b r e a t h i n g was heavy and l a b o r e d . (R.A.

339,

343, 372-37.?,

393-394).

H i s body was

slumped o v e r ont.0 the p a s s e n g e r s i d e of [he c a r , b u t his l e g s were s t i l l b e h i n d t h e w h e e l on t h e d r i v e r ' s

372-373,

392, 417, 435,

side.

(R.A.

456).

'The D e f e n d a n t had f a c i a l c u t s and o n e e y e w a s

310, 33'7-338,

b r u i s e d and s w o l l e n .

418).

(R.A.

'

The D e f e n d a n t ' s

N e i t h e r Pmy Munoz nor I-leathcr Swan t e s t i f i e d w h e t h e r t h e y saw a n y d r i - v e r b c h i n d t h e w h e e l of t h e c r u j s e r .

9

emergency room medical r e c o r d s r e f l e c t t h a t he h a d c o n t u s i o n s a n d a b r a s i o n s ; b r u i s i . n g a n d a b r a s i o n s on boLh knees; s u p e r f i c i a l c u t s on h i s h a n d s ; a n d a s u p e r f i c i a l l a c e r a t i o n on h i s r i g h t e y e l i d . 1215, 1 2 1 6 , 1 2 1 7 , 1221, 1226, 1 2 3 0 ) .

(R.A.

Aft.er the

a c c i d e n t , h e was h l e e d i n y Irom t h e n o s e and mouLh, a n d , when a r e s p o n d i n q o f f i c e r Lalked t o hi.m, t h e Defendant “ s t a r e d r i g h t t h r o u g h [ h i m ] ” a s i f t h e Defendant d i d

n o t even know t h c o f f i c e r was t . h e r e .

118).

(R.A.

393, 403,

Defendant a l s o had ” s a l i v a , drool.” cominy o u t of

his mouth. As t i m e

(R.A.

402).

wore o n , t h e Ilefendant s L a r t e d t o l o s e

c o l o r i n his f a c e and it becamc p u r p l e o r “ b l u i s h ” i n color.

(R.A. 397-398,

436).

P o l i c e o f f i c e r s who

r e s p o n d e d l a t e r Lo t h e scene n o t i c e d Chat t h e Defendant

was “ r o l . l . i n q aroLind a b i t . , t r y i n g t o r e p o s i t i o n himself.”

(R.A.

436, 4 5 9 ) .

The responding o f f i c e r s

h e l p e d Lhc D e f e n d a n t s i t u p a n d t h e n t h e y b r o u g h t o u t a n oxygen t a n k w i t h a mask.

(R.A. 4 3 7 , 4 5 8 ) .

When a

p o l i c e o f f i . c e r t r i e d Lo p l a c e t . h e oxygen m a s k u p t o t h e D e f e n d a n t ‘ s mouth w h i l e he w a s s l i l l i n s i d e h i s

c r u i s e r , i t i r r i t a t e d t h e Defendant and h e s t a r t e d t o move a r o u n d i n s i d e t h e c a r .

(R.A.

458).

‘The Deicridant

" k e p t p u s h i n g t h e oxygen away," s o t h e a s s i s t i n g

o f f i c e r "was c h a s i n g [ t h e Defcr.idant] a r o u n d w i t h t h e oxygen b e c a u s e h e k e p t moving and p u s h i n g [ t h e

a s s i s t i n g o f f i . c e r ' s 1 hands."

(R.A.

459-460, 4 6 3 ) .

When t h e p a r a m e d i c s t r i e d Lo p l a c e t h e Defendant on

a g u r n e y , "he k e p t t r y i n g t o sit. u p a n d he k e p t

(R.A. 4 4 0 ) .

y r a b b i n g h i s head and moving h i s h a n d s . "

The D e f e n d a n t was removed from t h e c r u i s u r o n a backboard t h r o u g h t h e d r i v e r ' s side.

461).

(R.A.

4%1, 459-

riurinq a t L c m p t s t o t a l k t o the D e f e n d a n t , h e d i d

not make a n y meani.ngfu1 o r a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e s , h e

was making no sense, and he d i d n o t m a k e (R.A.

444-445,

460,

463-4663

.

eye c o n t a c t . .

Ilefendarit was s l i g h t l y

cornbati-ve when t h e emergency p e r s o n n e l t r i e d t o p u t him

on t h e y u r n e y and pu1.1 h i m O U C of h i s c r u i s e r (R.A. 4 4 5 ) , and t i e d i d n o t ohey a n y of t h e commands he was g i v e n i n t h e b a c k of the ambulance.

(H.A.

465).

The

Defendant d i d n o t h a v e a n y a l c o h o l o r d r u y s i n h i s s y s t e m a t t h e t i m e of Che a c c i d e n t . On January 2 5 , 2007,

(R.A.

619, 6 5 0 ) .

t h e Defendant y a v c a s t a t e m e n t

t o F,ssex C o u n t y i n v e s t i q a t o r s i n which h e d e n i e d h a v i n g a n y alcohol t h e n i g h t b e f o r e Lhe a c c i d e n t , arid h e denied having any p r i o r diagnosis o r experience w i t h

11

fainting spells, black outs, or memory loss. ( R . A . 513, 519).

The last. thinq the Dcfcndant remembered beiore

the accident was coming over a hill or1 Cabot Street, and then the nexC Lhing he recalled was waking up and seeing the liqhts of the emergency room. ( R . A . 517510).

Defendant was unable to expl.ain what happened to

him during the accident, b u t he did not make any radio calls or cell phone calls while driving that. morriirig from his cruiser, he was not 1.oqqed into or usi.ng t.he onboard cornipuLcrs in his cruiser, and he did not h a v c a drink in his hand or anythi.ng else exccpt the steeririy wheel. ( R . A . 2.

519-522).

The Dofendant's C a s e ,

In support of his theory that he sulfered a medical emerqency that rcndered him unable to control his car, the Defendant presented testimony from: Murphy, an accident reconstructionist

(1) Gerard D.

(R.A.

675-'105);

( 3 ) Dr. J a m s R. l,ehrich, a ricurologist (R.A. 708-755);

and ( 3 ) the Defendant testified in his own dcfense

(R.A. 759-777). Gerard Murphy calculated, inter alia, that the Deicndant's car travulcd between 474-480 f e e t durj.ng the 1 1 . 4 seconds before impact. ( R . A .

12

679).

'The

Defendant testified consistent with his posL-accident statement to Essex County investiqators, and also added that when he took a si.p from his drink in the SevenElevcn parking lot, it did not tasLe right to him

so

he

puL it in the cup holder and did not. drink anymorc.

(R.A. 7 7 5 - 7 7 6 ) .

Dr. Lehrich opined that, Lo a

reasonable degree of mcdical certainty, the Defendant “most probably” had a t0ni.c-clonic scizure that caused the accident. (H.A. 718-721, 723). 3.

The Coininorlwed 1 th ‘ s R e h u t t;ll C a s c .

Dr. Daniel Iloch, a neurologist at Massachusetts Gcrieral Hospit.al, testified as the Commonwealth‘s on1 y rebuttal witness.

Or. Iioch described many of Lhe

causes for loss of consciousness and the causes and symptoms of seizurcs. ( R . A .

837-845).

IIowcver, he

admitted on direct examination t.hat “a big cause is we don’t find a c a u s c ” and there i.s no naLural reason. (R.A.

845).

In tact, in 303-50s of the cases, a doctor

“ l o o k l s ] arid look[s] and lookls]” but stj.71 cannot find

tho cause of a seizurc.

(d.).

Dr. Hoch did not see anyt-hiny in Defendant‘s medical records that was “uni.que to

J.

seizure,” but he

admitted that iL was “impossihle Lo tell the difference

between" Lhc D c f e n d a n t ' s c o n f u s i o n in t h i s c a s e b e i n g c a u s e d by a s e i z u r e v e r s u s a h e a d i n j u r y .

(R.A.

04H).

Moreover, alLhough D r . Hoch d i d n o t v i e w a s e i z u r e a s

t . h e "more l i k e l y r e a s o n , "

(R.A.

848-849;

emphasis

a d d e d ) , h e c o n c l u d c d t o a " h i g h d e q r e e of m e d i c a l certainty

. . .

t . h a t you can't bc medically c e r t a i n

a b o u t what a c t u a l l y happericd d u r i n g [ t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s accident] . "

(R.H.

855; emphasis a d d e d ) .

On c r o s s - e x a r n i n a t i o r i ,

Lhe Commonwealth's r c b u t t a l

case c o n t i n u e d t o d e t e r i o r a t e s u b s t a n t i a 7 1 y when D r . iloch L c s t i f i e d t.hat.:

(1) 50% of g e n e r a l j n t e r i i i s t s

wrongly i d e n t i f y s e i z u r e s (R.A. 864); ( 2 ) when p e o p l e y o into a n emergency room w i L h a f i r s t . s e i z u r e i t

f r e q u e n t l y goes unrecoqnized (R.A.

867) ; ( 3 ) a person

h a v i n g a s e i z u r e , p a r L i c u 1 a r l . y a f i r s t uric, might n o t l e a v e a n y i d e n t i f i a b l e m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e t . h a t c a n bc v e r i f i e d a f t e r t h e f a c t . (H.A. 8 6 5 ) ; ( 4 ) a p e r s o n h a v i n g a s e i z u r e c o u l d h a v e many o f t h e same symptoms the Defendant e x h i b i t e d immedj a t - e l y a1Ler t h e a c c i d e n t (R.P..

8 - 7 - 1 - 8 8 0 ) ; and ( 5 ) h e c o u l d

not r u l e out t h a t a

s e i z u r e c a u s e d t h e D e f e n d a n t t o l o s e c o n L r o l of h i s c a r prior t o the crash.

conceded -

(R.A.

081-882).

t h a t thc D e f e n d a n t ' s

14

I n f a c t , / I r . Iluch

a c c o u n t f o r t h e c a u s c of

t h e a c c i d e n t w a s “a viable medical theory. rr7

(K.A.

882;

emphasis added) . D r . Hoch f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t

3

s e i z u r e wou1.d

have rendered Lhe Defendant u n a b l e t.o c o n L r o l h i s c a r t o p r e v e n t t h e accident (R.A.

8 8 7 1 , a n d if D e f e n d a n t ’ s

f o o t was on t h e a c c e l e r a t o r w h e n h e e x p e r i e n c e d t h e t o n i c porLion of a t o n i c - c l o n i c s e i z u r e , h i s s t i f f e n e d hody would h a v e p u s h e d down on t h e acceleraLar for 1020 seconds

(R.A. 8 8 7 - 8 8 8 )

-

t h e precise r a n g e of t i m e

t h e D e f e n d a n t ‘ s car i n e x p l j c a b l y and r a p i d l y

a c c e l o r a t c d without. braking immedi;-iLely b e f o r e c r a s h i n y i n t o t h e v i c t i m ‘ s car.

4.

C l o s i n g Arquments

D u r i n g Lhe Commonwealth’s c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t , t h e p r o s e c u t o r showed t h e j u r y a blown up p h o t o g r a p h of t h e Defendant‘s windshield.

(R.A.

937).

Although t h e

a d m i s s i b i l i L y of t h i s p h o t o g r a p h h a d been s t i ~ p u l a t e d t o p r i o r t o t r i a l . , it i s undisputed t h a t t h e .Lrial p r o s e c u t o r n e v e r showed it t o a n y o f t h e witricsses, n o r d i d h e e l i c i L a n y test.j.mony d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e t r i a l a b o u t Lhe damage (or t h e causc o f t h e damaqe) t o

’ Sergeant

Ryan a l s o c o n c e d e d i n t h e Commonwealth’s c a s e - i n - c h i e f t h a t t h e DcLcndant p r e s e n t e d a “ v i a b l e h y p o t h e s i s ” that a m e d i c a l emergency c a u s e d t h e a c c i d e n t . (R.A. 6 5 1 , 654-6551. 15

t h e windshield a s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e photograph. 1141-1142;

SJ Tr.

23).

(K.A.

The p r o s e c u t o r a r g u e d t h a t t h c

c r a c k i n t h e u p p c r l e f t c o r n e r o f t h e w i n d s h i e l d was a "spidered windshield" caused by the Defcndant' s head.

(R.A. 9 3 2 - 9 3 7 ) .

The prosecutor argued t h a t t h i s

e v i d e n c e p r o v e d Lhe D e f e n d a n t was s i t t i n q u p a l t h e

t i m e of i m p a c t .

(R.A. 9 3 9 - 9 4 0 ) .

Thc p r o s e c u t o r a l s o showed t h e j u r y f i r s t t i m e d u r i n g closj.ng argument the drivcr's

-

-

for the

a p h o t o g r a p h of

s i d e a i r b a g a n d a r g u e d t h a t t h c few d r o p s

of b l o o d a n d s a l i v a on i t a l s o p r o v e d t h e D e f e n d a n t

was s i t t . i . n q up d u r i n g t h c c r a s h .

(R.A.

333-9401.

T h e r e f o r e , t.he p r o s e c u t o r a r y u c d t h a t "we know" D e f e n d a n t was s i t t i n y u p a n d c o u l d n o t h a v e beer1 s u f f e r i n g f r o m a s e i z u r e b e c a u s e "a p e r s o n h a v i n g

s e i z u r e d o e s n o t s i t up."'

il

(R.A. 9 3 9 - 9 4 0 ) .

The D e f e n d a n t o b j c c L c d t o t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s c l o s i n g r e ~ r i a r k s on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e y were n o t b a s c d on a n y e v i d e n c e i n t r u d u c c d at. t h e trial.(K.A.1109-1110).

The D e f e n d a n t a l s o o r a l l y

T h e Commonwealth d i d n o t e l i c i l a n y e x p e r t m e d i c a l t e s t i m o n y t o s u p p o r t , i t s aryurncnt t h a t a p e r s o n s u f f e r i n g a s e i z u r e could n o t s i t u p .

16

. ..

. ..-

.. . .

..-

moved f o r a m i s t r i a l , which was d e n i e d . '

(K.A. 1115-

1116). D . Post-Trial Motions.

S e v e r a l d a y s a f t . e r t . h e v e r d i c t , t h e DeLendant

f i l e d h i s Motion s e e k i n g a r e q u i r e d f i n d i n g o f n o t guilty or,

i.n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , a new t r i a l .

'The

D e f e n d a n t a r g u e d t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r e n g a g e d i n misconduct by,

inter alia, a r q u i n q i n h i s c l o s i n g t h a t

Lhc D e f e n d a n t ' s c a r h a d a " s p i d c r e d " w i n d s h j - e l d .

(R.A. 1 2 8 - 1 3 4 ) .

'The D e f e n d a n t subrniLted a s u p p o r t i n g

a f f i d a v i t f r o m G e r a r d L1. Murphy, h i s e x p e r t t r i a l w i t n e s s on a c c i d e n t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n .

(R.A. 1 4 9 ) .

Mr.

Murphy a t - t e s t e d t h a t a " s p i d e r e d " w i n d s h i e l d i s a s p e c i f i c terrri i r i d i c a t i n g o c c u p a n t c o n t a c t w i t h a windshield,

a n d c o n t . r a r y t o the p r o s e c u t o r ' s

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n h i s c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t , t h e damage t o 9

T h e p r o s e c u t o r also i m p r o p e r l y a r g u e d t h a t . "[tlhe o n l y w a y t h L [ t h e ] s a l i v a q o t [on t h c a i r b a g ] i s i f StuairC Merry, h i s f a c e , h i t t h n C a i r b a g at t . h e t i m e oi Lhe c r a s h . " [K.A. 9 3 6 ; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ] . T h e p r o s e c u t o r 1 a t e r r e p e a t e d LhaL " [t.]h e o n l y w a y t h e b l o o d , s a l i v a and t h e s t a r r i n g o c c u r r e d i s i f S t u a r L Merry w a s s i t t i r i y up a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c r a s h a n d h i s (R.A. 9 3 7 ; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ] . T h e s e a i r b a g deployed." were n o t f a i r a r g u m e n t s o r i n f e r e n c e s d u c t o t h e undisputed testimony of t h e s i g n i f i c a n t post-crash a c t i v i C y w i t h i n t h e Defendant's c a r t.hat c o u l d have b e e n t h e s o u r c e oi t h e b l o o d a n d s a l i v a 01.1 t h e a i r b a g , a n d due t o S e r g e a n t R y a n ' s s u b s e q u e n t l y d i s c l o s e d e x c u l p a t o r y o p i n i o n t . h a t t h e r e w a s rio e v i d e n c e t - h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t was s i t t i r i y up a t t h e t . i m F : o f i m p a c t .

17

D e f e n d a n t ' s w i n d s h i e l d was the r e s u l t o f e x t e r n a l s t r e s s e s u r " i n d u c e d " damage c a u s e d h y t h e irnpacL

Lorces of t h e a c c i d e n t .

(K.A.

15 a t 91918-9).

T h e t r i a l j u d q e clenicd Lhc D e f e n d a n t ' s p o s t - t r i a l mot.i.nn f o r a r e q u i r e d f i n d i n g o f n o t g u i l t y , hut s c h e d u l e d a h e a r i n g f o r May 6, 2 0 0 8 ,

t.0

d e t e r m i n e whaL

t h e t . r i a l p r o s e c u t o r knew u r " c h o s e t o know" a b o u t t h e a c c u r a c y of h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t h e j u r y r e q a r d i n g Ihe "spidered" wjndshield.

(R.A.

1204).

A few d a y s b e f o r e t h a t h e a r i n g ,

t h e Commonwealth

(R.A.

s e r v e d t h e DefendonC w i t h t h e D i s c o v e r y N o t i c e . 992).

I n t h e Discovery Notice,

t h e Communwealth

c o n c e d e d t h a t t h e E s s e x P r o s e c u t o r h a d s p o k e n Lo S e r g e a n t R y a n p r i o r t o t r i a l and a s k e d her w h e t h e r Chere was a n y damage t o the w i n d s h i e l d c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s head s t r i k i n g it d u r i . n g t h e a c c i d c n l . S e r g e a n t Ryan r e p l i e d khat s h e d i d not. n o t i c e a n y s u c h damage.

(R.A.

994).

After f u r t h e r pusC-Lrial

inquiry

of S e r g e a n t Ryan, t h e Curnoonwealth d i s c 1 o s e d t h a t S e r q e a n t Ryan h e l d t h e o p i n i o n t h a t ther'c was n o evi.dence t h a t t h e Defendant w a s s i t t i r i y up at the time

of t h e crash, it. was possible t.haC h e m i g h t n o t h a v e bccn s i t t i n g u p , a n d t h a t t h o damage t o t h e w i n d s h i e l d

was i n d u c e d b y t h e i m p a c t of t h e c r a s h , n o t D e f e n d a n t ' s body.

(R.A.

994).

The Hearinq on May 6 , 2 0 0 8

E.

A t t h e h e a r i n g on May 6 ,

2000, t h e t r i a l judge

found t h a t S e r g e a n t Ryan's p r e v i o u s l y u n d i s c l . o s e d o p i n i . o n w a s b o t h c x c u l p a t o r y and m a t e r i a l t o t h e Defendant..

(H.H.

judge found,

1130, 1 1 3 2 ) .

Although t h e t r i a l

sua s p o n t e , ChaL t h e f a i l u r e t o d i s c l o s e

t h e e x c u l p a t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n was u n i n t e n t i o n a l ,

the

j u d q e f u r t h e r f o u n d t h a t t h e t . r i . a l p r o s e c u t o r ncver would h a v e b e e n a b l e t o make h i s argumcnL a b o u t . t h e " s p i d e r c d w i n d s h i e l d " i n h i s c l o s i n g i f h e h a d known w h a t Lhe Essex l 7 r o s e C u t o r knew a b o u t S e r g e a n t . R y a n ' s

opinion.

(Add.31-32).

The t r i a l judge u l t i m a t e l y h e l d thaL t h e s e e r r o r s

"may w e l l h a v e a f f e c t e d t.he outcome 01 t h i s c a s e " a n d t h a t t h e undisclosed exculpatory evidence "created a s i q n i f i c a n L l i k e l i h o o d t-hait the ouLcome of t h e v e r d i c t

i n t h i s c a s e w a s impacted. "

(Add.35) . A c c o r d i n g l y ,

t h e t r i a l judge g r a n t e d t h e Dciendant a new t r i a l .

The D e f e n d a n t t h e n s o u g h t r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h i s

Mot.ion on t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence now t h a t . the i.mproper argument. r e g a r d i n y Lhc w i n d s h i e l d ,

i n f e r c n c e s drawn t h e r e f r o m ,

were s t r i c k e n .

and x i y (R.A.

1.1 61 )

.

The t r i a l j u d y c dcnied t h e

motion (Add. 35-36),

defendant.'^ renewed

and t h e s e appel l.ate p r o c e e d i n g s

ensued. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

I.

The D e f e n d a n t ' s numerous rnoCions f o r r e q u i r e d

f i n d i n q s nf n o t g u i l t y s h o u l d h a v e been a1 ].owed where t h e Commonwealth' s e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g " o p e r a t i o n " was

l e g a l 1.y i n s u f f i - c i e n t .

The u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s supporC t h e

e q u a l l y l i k e l y Lheory t h a t t.he Illefendant. s u f i c r e d a m e d i c a l emergency, most l i k e l y a sei z u r e , which r e n d e r e d h i m unable t o c o n t r o l h i s cruiser.

[Rr.32-39].

t h e CommonwealCh's r e l i a n c e on t h e c r u i s e r ' s

In fact,

excessive

s p e e d , c r o s s i n g of the y e l l o w l i n e , and l a c k of prei m p a c t b r a k i n q as e v i d c n c c of o p e r a t i o n a n d / o r n e g l i g e n c e f a i l s t o s a t i s f y i t s burden because t h e s e f a c t o r s r e a s o n a b l y could have b e e n c a u s e d b y a s e i z u r e .

[Br.40-411. S i m i I . a r l y , the l a c k o f p o s t - a c c i d e n t m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e c o n f i r m i n g a seizure i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t where i t

was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h i s type of e v i d e n c e o f t e n does

exist.

110L

[Hr.47-43].

F i n a l l y , no r e a s o n a h l e j u r y c o u l d f i n d t h e

essenLia1 element o f " o p e r a t i o n " beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t where b o t h t.he Commonwealth's m e d i c a l e x p e r t and

20

i t s a c c i d e n t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t a q r e e d t h a t t h e Defendant

p r e s e n t e d a " v i a b l e m e d i c a l t h e o r y " thaL c o u l d n o t be r u l e d o u t , and t-hey had no o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e accident.

[Br.40-41].

Accordingly, double jeopardy

b a r s t h e Defendant's r e - t r i a l . 11.

Ilurinq t h e p r e - t r i a l

i n t e r v i e w o f h i s accident

reconstruct.ionist, t h e t r i a l prosecutor avoided asking i f t h e r e was a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t was sitting

up a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d c n L b e c a u s e , t h e I l e f e n d m t m a i n t a i n s , t.he p r o s e c u t o r knew Lhe a n s w e r would be exculpat-ory.

LBr.44-451.

Lj.kewi se, t h e p r o s e c u t o r d i d

n o t e l i c i t a n y t e s t i m o n y from his L r i a l w i t n e s s e s a b o u t t h e damaged w i n d s h i e l d o r t h e b l o o d a n d saliva on t h e a i r b a g s o h e c o u l d s h i e l d h i s witnesses from a r i y o r o u s c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t h e k n e w would have r e v e a l e d e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e and n e q a t e d t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e Defendant was s i t t i . n g u p r i g h t aL Lhe t i m e of i m p a c t . [Br.45]. S.J.C.'s

'This c o n d u c t v i o l a t e d R u l e : 3 . R ( j ) R u l e s uL P r o f e s s i o n a l C o n d u c t .

Moreover,

of t h e

LBr.45-471.

f o r Lhe f i r s t time i n c l o s i n y a r g u m e n t ,

t h e p r o s e c u t o r r a i s e d t h e i ssue o f t h e w i n d s h i e l d , b l o o d and s a l i v a and made h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l comments t h a t were n o t s u p p o r t e d anywhere i n t h e e v i d e n c e .

21

The

prosecutor was facing

certain "riot guilty verdict" at

a

Che close of the evidence, and by springing this o n the Defendant for t.he first Lime during his closing, he forced the Defendant into moving for a mistrial.

[Br.47-48]. Weeks a f t e r thc trial, the Uefendarit: received a Discovery Noti.ce confirminy that Sergeant Kyan held a material and exculpatory opinion about the windshield that direcLly contradicted key c:orruncnts made in the prosecutor's closing argument.

The complaint

s h o u l d be dismissed based or1 Lhc prosecutor's egregious

misconduct

I.

.

[ Rr .47-4 91

.

THE DEEENDANT'S RE-TRIAL FOR MOTOR VEHICLE HOMICIDE IS BARBED ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY PRINCIPLES WHERE THE COMMONWEALTH PRODUCED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF "OPERATION," AND ITS OWN EXPERT MEDICAL WITNESS AND ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTIONIST AGREED THAT THE DEFENDANT PRESENTED "A VIABLE THEORY" THAT HE SUFFERED A MIDICAL EMERGENCY RENDERING HZM UNABLE TO CONTROL HIS CAR AND THEY COULD NOT FIND ANY OTHER EXPLANATION FOR THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT. A.

The Standard of R e v i e w .

The familiar standard for ruling on a motion for a required finding of not quilty is whet.her, "after reviewing the evidence in the 1.jght. mosL favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have

22

i

d

h

esser i.al

reasonable doubt."

of t h e crime beyond a

I. erne

B e r r y v . Commonwealth, 393 Mass.

7Y3, ./91 (1985), quoting Commonwea1t.h v . L a t i m o r e , 378

Mass. 6 7 1 , 676-677

Ilowcvcr, " t o s u s t a i . n t h e

(19.79).

d e n i a l uf a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t ,

it is n o t criough f o r t h e

a p p e l l a t e c o u r t tu f i n d t h a t t h e r e was some r e c o r d e v i d e n c e , however s l i y h L , Lo s u p p o r t e a c h e s s e n t i a l

element of the oflcnse; i t m u s t f j . n d t h a t there was enough evi.dence t h a t c o u l d have s a t i s f i e d a r a t i o n a l

Lrier o f fact. of e a c h s u c h element beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubl." Scc

Latimore,

378 Mass. a t 6 7 8 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) .

a l s o I n re Wj.nship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1Y70). Moreover,

the evidence i s i n s u f i i c i e n t i f i t merely

p i l e s i n f e r e n c e upon i n f e r e n c e . Cornmonwcalth, 4 2 8 Mass. 1 9 3 ,

v. M a n d j l e ,

I

403

See Corson v.

(1998), citing CommonwealLh

Mass. 93, 9 4 ( 1 9 8 8 ) .

S i m i l a r l y , i f "the

y u c s t i o n of g u i l t of t h e d e i c n d a n t i s l e f t t o c o n j e c t u r e

o r s u r m i s e and h a s no solid f o u n d a t i o n i n e s t a b l i s h e d f a c t s , a verdicL of quil.ty cannot stand."

Berry v.

Commonwealth, 393 Mass. a t 795-./96 , q ~ i o t i r i gCommonwealth

23

v.

O'H

,

3 0 5 Mas

393, 401 ( 1 9 4 0 ) .

F i n a l l . y , a n d most p e r t i n e n l h e r e ,

i f t h e evidence

" t e n d s equally t o s u s t a i n e i t h e r o f two i n c o n s i s t e n t pruposilions,

n e i t h e r of t h e m c a n be s a i d t o h a v e been

e s t a b l i s h e d by l e g i t i m a t e p r o o f . "

Bcrry v .

Commonweaith, 3 9 3 Mass. a t 7 9 6 , a n d c a s e s c i t e d

I n s u c h a c a s e , a r e q u i r e d f i n d i n g of n o t

therein.

q u i l t y m u s t b c g r a n t e d b e c a u s e "[a] v e r d i c . t i n f a v o r of a p;irLy bound t o m a i n t a i n o n e oL Lhose p r o p o s i t i o n s

a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i s n c c c s s a r i l y wrong.

"

C;omoriwcalLh

v . C r o L t , 345 Mass. 1 4 3 , 145 (1962), q u o t i n g Commonwealth v. O ' B r i e n ,

305 Mass. at 400.

Indeed,

Lhe

v e r y d e f i n i t i o n o f r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , a s i n s t r u c t e d by

Wcbster, i s t h a t "the circumstances m u s t b e s u c h a s t o produce

LI

m u r a l c e r t a i n t y of g u i l t , a d t o excliide my

o t h e r r e a s o n a b l e hypothesis." Cush. 295,

Comnioriwcalth v . Webster, 5

319 ( 1 8 5 0 ) ( e m p h a s i s added).

T h e r e f o r e , i f a j u r y h a s t o employ c o n j e c t u r e when c h o o s i n g between p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e s from t h e e v i d e n c e presented

a s it d i d i n t h i s

24

catic -

Lhe e v i d e n c e i s

l e y a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t a s a m a t t e r of l a w t o s u s t a i n t h e

Commonwealth's b u r d e n o f p r o o f .

Croft,

See Commonwealth v .

345 Mass. at. 1 4 5 , c i t i n g CommonwcalLh v. A l b e r t ,

310 Mass. 811, 0 1 7 (1942).

The Allegedly "Spidered" Windshield And The Blood And Saliva On The Airbag Cannot B e Considered I n This Court's Review Of The S u f f i c i e n c y O f The Evidence.

B.

1.

T h e Damaye to Lhc W i n d s h i e l d .

I n applying t h e above-described

l e g a l framework,

t h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w of t h e evidence must e x c l u d e any c o n s i d e r a t . j . o n of t h e Commonwealth's i m p r o p e r a r g u m e n t , a n d i n f e r e n c e drawn t h e r e f r o m , w i n d s h i e l d was c;luscd b y t h e

it during t h e a c c i d e n t .

t h a t t h e damaqe t o t h e defendant.'^ head s t r i k i n g

See Comnonwcalth v . K i r o u a c ,

4 0 5 Mass. 55"/,5 6 4 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t r e t r i a l would h e b a r r e d on doiihle j e o p a r d y p r i n c i p l e s "where the p r o s e c u t i o n had no r e a s o n a b l e p r o s p e c t of L i l l i n g t h e g a p i n i t s p r o o f t . h a t would be c r c a t c d by t.he e x c l u s i o n uf

the i n a d m i s s j b l e e v i d e n c e " ) , c i t i n g Commonwealth v .

F u n c h e s , 37Y Mass. 283, 295-297 (lY./Y). See also Commonwealth v . S i l.-v a , 366 Mass. 402, 410-411 (1974). 'The D i s c o v e r y N o t i c e m a k e s c l e a r t h a t t h e t r i a l .

prosecuLor' s argument, r e q a r d i r i y Lhe windshie1.d had no 25

IacLual basis in the evidence.

In fact, Sergeant Ryan

h o l d s the opinion t.hat t.he damaye L 6 the windshield from

Defendant's car was most likely "induced" by the force

of the crash

-

not Defendant's body

-

and that there was

no evidence t h a t t h e Deferidant was s i t t i n g up at the time of t h e a c c i d e n l .

Accordingly, the Commonwcalth

cannot " f i . l . 1 the yap" of the excluded evidence on a retrial.

'Yo the contrary, the Commonwealth's case would

deteri.orate even further on re-trial based on the recently discloscd exculpatory evidence. 2.

T h e Blood and S a l i v a on t h e A i r b a g .

Likcwisc, this Court s h o u l d nul. consider the blood and s a l i v a found on the driver's ai.rbag when weighing the sufficiency of the evidence because Lhe Commonwealth did not present any expcrL witness to opine h o w or ~

Y J

these fluids w e r c deposited on t.he airbag. There was undispuLcd testimony from the Commonwealth's own witnesses about significant postcrash activity inzidc the Defendant.'s car while he was bl.eedinq and drooling t.hat provided numerous opporLunities for the blood and saliva to have bccn deposited on the airhay afler the crash.

Howevcr, the

Currunonwealth made nu aLLempt duri.ng trial to establish

26

a n e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s upon which t o a r g u e t h a t t h e b l o o d a n d s a l i v a were p l a c e d on t h e a i . r h a q d i r e c t l y from Lhe U e f e n d a n t . ' ~ f a c e a t t h e t i m e of- irripacl. 'The Commonwealth was s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k e d d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e S i n q l e J u s t i c e (Cordy, J . ) why i t had not. e l i c i t e d t h i s t y p e of tcsLimony f r o m i t s e x p e r t

w i t n e s s e s s i n c e t h i s e v i d e n c e was s u c h case.

(SJ T r . / 2 3 ) .

;1

b i g p a r t of i t s

I n r e s p o n s e , t h e Commonwealth

a d m i t t e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e t h a t "noric of t h e s e e x p e r t s

were q u a l i f i e d a t t r i a l a s e x p c r L s on b l o o d s p l a t t e r o r a n y t h i n g l i k e t h a t , s o i t ' s n o t even c l e a r t h a t t h e y

could h a v e yiveri t h a t t e s t i m o n y . "

( S J "l'r./2:3-24)

.

'This s t a t e m e n t c o n s t i t u t e s a j u d i c i a l a d m i s s i o n

ChaL e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i . n g s p l a t t e r e v i d e n c e was n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r t o draw ariy o p i n i o n s , c o n c l u s i o n s o r i n f e r e n c e s r e g a r d i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f b l o o d a n d s a l i v a on t h e a i r b a y , and i n p a r t i c u l a r ,

e v i d e n c e was p l a c e d t h e r e . 1 °

when a n d how t h a t

~

ThercLorc, i f t h e

It. i s c u s t o m a r y f o r Che Commonwealth t o c a l l a n e x p e r t w i t n e s s when p r e s e n t e d w i t h b l o o d splatLer e v i d e n c e . See e.g., Commonwealth v . Rice, 4 2 7 Mass. 2 0 3 , 206 ( 1 9 9 8 ) (Commonweal.th p r e s e n t e d experL w i t n e s s t o t e s t i . f y t . h a t " t h e amounts, l o c a t i o n s , and s p l a t t e r p a t t e r n s of t h e b l o o d i n t h e bedroom were i n d i c a t i v e of a t l e a s t two medium v e l o c i t y blows") ; Commonwealth v . Gordon, 4 2 2 Mass. 81 6, 6 3 6 - 8 3 ' 1 ( 1 9 9 6 ) (Commonwealth v i o l a t e d ( C o n t ' d t o n e x t payel lU

27

Commonwealth i n t e n d e d Lo a r g u e i n i t s c l o s i n g t h a t . t h e s p l . a t t e r e d b l o o d a n d s a l i v a on t h e a i r b a g were " p r o o f " t h a t Chc D e f e n d a n t was s i t t i n g u p a t t h e time of i m p a c t ,

i t w a s incumbcnI upon t h e Commonwealth t o p r e s e n t a n e x p e r t wiCncss t o o p i n e on t h i s s u h j e c t .

The

Commonwea1t.h el.ected n o t t o do s o . C o n s e q u e n t l y , the b l o o d and s a l i v a e v i d e n c e n e v e r s h o u l d have been argued t o t h e j u r y d u r i n g t h e t r i a l prosecutor's

c l o s i n g , and t h i s f a i l u r e of p r o o f means

t h a t no r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s can he drawn f r o m t h i s

e v i d e n c e when w e i q h i n g i t s legal s u f f i c i e n c y . Col u c c i v . Rosen, G o l d b e r g , S l a v e t , 1Levenson

P.C., -

C:f. &

WcksLein,

2 5 Mass. App. Ct. 1 0 7 , 113.-116 ( 1 9 8 7 ) (wlicre

p l a i n t i f f s t r i e d c a s e withoul p r e s e n t i n g e x p e r t t.estimony t h a t was r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h s t a n d a r d of c a r e and c a u s a t i o n i n l e g a l m a l p r a c t i c e c a s e , t h e j u r y cou1.d n o t have drawn i n f e r e n c e s r e g a r d i n g defendant's a l l e q e d a c t i o n s and t h i s d e f i . c i e n c y i n p r o o f r e n d e r e d t h e e v i d c n c e i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e j u r y Lo c o n c l u d e t . h a t

d i s c o v e r y o r d e r by n o t r i o t i l y i n y d e f e n d a n t s i t would o f f e r e x p e r t o p i n i o n t-estimony t h a t t h c blood s p l . a t t e r e v i d e n c e was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' g u i l t as c h a r g e d , which was b a s e d on t h e e x p e r t ' s " o b s e r v a t i o n s on t h e v a r i o u s c o n f i g u r a t i o n s o f b l o o d s p l n t l c r s , i n c l u d i n g t h e form, shape a n d ' d i r e c t i o n a l i t y ' of t h e b l o o d s t a i n s on t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' c l o t h i n g " ) .

28

d e f e n d a n t s were Donabed,

iable).

4 7 Mass

Cf. A t - l a s Tack C o r p . v.

App. C t . 221, 2 2 ' 1 - 2 2 8

(1999) (without

r e q u i s i t e expert engineering testimony, t h e p l a j - n t i f f c o u l d n o t e s t a b l i s h t.he a p p l i c a b l e z t a n d a r d s of t h e e n g i n e e r i n y p r o f e s s i o n , and t h e r e f o r e ,

"the p l a i n t i f f

had no r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n of p r o v i n g i t s c a s e " ) .

C.

A Medical Event, Such As A Seizure, Precludes A Finding Of Negligence And Amounts To A Failure Of Proof On A n Essential Element Of Motor

Vehicle Homicide By Negligent Operation. The D e f e n d a n t was c h a r y e d w i l h m o t o r v e h j c l e homici.de b y n e g l i y e n L o p e r a t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e ,

thc

Commonwealth was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e f o u r e s s e n t i a l

elements:

(I) o p e r a t i o n o f a motor vehicl-e, (2) upon a

p u b l i c way, or safety,

( 3 ) n e g l . i q e n t l y s o a s to e n d a n g e r human l i f e

(4) t h c r e b y c a u s i n g t h e d e a t h aL a p e r s o n .

See Commonwealth v. Burke,

(1,978).

6 Mass. App. C t . 697, 699

Under lhis t h e o r y of c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y ,

" n e g l i g e n c e " i s defiricd by r e f e r e n c e t o t o r t p r i n c i p l e s ,

see Hurke, 6 Mass. App. C t . a t 699-700, ~

buL still

must

b e p r o v e n hy t h e c r i m i n a l s t a n d a r d o f "beyond a reasonable doubt. 415,

"

A u c e l l a v . Commonwealth,

417 ( 1 9 9 0 ) .

29

406 M a s s .

I n t h i s case, t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a L t h e D c i e n d a n t ' s v e h i c l e was on a p u b l i c way, a n d Lhat Bonnie

B u r n s ' s d e a t h was c a u s e d b y t h e a c c i d c n t .

Therefore,

t h e d i s p u t e d e l e m c n t s a t t r i a l were w h e t h e r t h e

Dcfendant " o p e r a t e d " h i s c a r a t t h e t i m e of t h c

a c c i . d e n t , a n d w h e t h e r he d i d s o n e g l i g e n t l y .

917).

(R.H.

"The law is t h a t a p e r s o n i s ' o p e r a t i n g '

a motor

v e h i c l e whenever h c o r s h e i s i n t.he v e h i c l e arid i n t e r i t i o n a l l y m a n i p u l a t e s some m e c h a n i c a l o r e l e c t r i c a l p a r t of t h e v e h i d e

. . .

"

Model J u r y I n s t r u c t i o n f o r

t h e District C o u r t 3 . 0 6 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) , c i t i n g Commonwealth v . t i n n e t t i , 4 0 0 Mass. 1 8 1 , 184 ( 1 . 9 6 7 ) ; Commonwealth v . U s k i ,

263 Mass. 2 2 , 24 ( 1 9 2 8 ) .

In

Altman v . A r o n s u n , 2 3 1 Mass. 588, 591 (lYlY), t h i s Court. d e f i n e d n e g l i g e n c e a s follows: Negliycrice, w i t h o u t q u a l i f i c a t i o n a n d i n it.s o r d i n a r y sense, i s t h e i a i l u r e of a r e s p o n s i b l e p e r s o n , e i t h e r by o m i s s i o n o r b y a c t i o n , t o exerci,se t h a t deyrce of c a r e , vigi.1.ance and f o r e t h o u y k t which, i n t h e d i s c h a r q e of t h e d u t y t.hen r e s t i n g 0 1 1 h i m , thc p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y cauLion a n d p r u d e n c e o u q h t t o e x e r c i s e under t h e particul.ar circumstances. Id. -

a t 591.

"'By the yrcaL weight of authority a sudden and unforeseeable physical seizure rendering an operator unable to control his m o t o r vehicle cannot be Lermed negligence.

. . .

S u c h l a seizure] does not fall withi.n

the defini.tion [of neqligence] b y Chief Justice Hugg i n Altman v. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588, 591, 121 N . F : .

505,

506, 4 A . L . K. 3185. ' C a r r o l l v. Bouley, 338 Mass. 625, 627, 156 N.E:.2d 6H7,

689."

Mass 114, 11.1 (1962).

McGovcrn v . Tinglof, 344

See a l s o Ellingsgard v. Silver,

3.57 Mass. 34, 36-39 (1967) (motion for directed verdicL

should have been allowed where boat driver's sudden and unforeseeable medical condition causi.nq boat to crash precluded finding of negl i q e n t . operation) . Finally, the Commonwealth cannot merely re1 y on the Lact that the Defendant caused an accident to sustain its burden of proof.

"The mere happer.iing of an accident.

between a moLor vehicle and a pedestrian, whcre the circumstances immediately preceding it are left to conjecture, is not sufficient t.o prove negligencc on the part of t h e u p e r a L o r of the vehicle." Aucella v . Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 415, 418 (1990), quoting Callahan v. Lach, 3 3 8 Mass. 233, 235 (1958). Hence, t.he critical inquiry for this Court is

31

w h e t h e r t h e e v i t i e n c c , viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e Commonwealth, c o u l d l e a d a n y rat.iona1 t r i e r o f f a c t t o find beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

-

snd t o the

exc1ur;ion uf a n y o t h e r reasonable hypothesis presented

b y t h e evidence

-

t h a t t h e Defendant was c a p a b l c of

c o n t r o l l i n y a n d d i d c o n t r o l . h i . s c a r a t t k c L i m e of t h e accident.

A s d i s c u s s e d below, t h e e v i d e n c e d i d n o t m e e t

t h i s burden,

a n d a c c o r d i n g 1 y , t h e Defendant‘s numerous

moLions f o r required f i n d i n g s of not. g u i l t y s h o u l d have been allowed.

D . The Evidence Regarding “Operation“ Equally Supported Defendant‘s Theory, And Therefore, H i s Motions For A Revised Finding Of Not Guilty Should Have Been Allowed. T h e Commonwealth’s t h e o r y o f t h e c a s e was t h a t ” t h e

n e q l i q e n c e i r i L h i s m a t t e r i.s t h a t

I t k c d e f e n d a n t ] was

g o i n g o v e r 5 0 miles a n h o u r i n a 30-miles-an-hour

zone,

and h c c r o s s e d o v e r t h e y e l l o w l i n e s , a c r o s s t h e s t r e e t w h e n h c h i t Bonny H u m s ’ c a r . ”

(R.A.

242,

919). D u r i n g

i t s c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t , t h e Commonwcalth a l s o i m p r o p e r l y

a r g u e d w i t h o u t a n y s u p p o r t i n Lhe e v i d e n c e t h a t ,

be c a u s e o f t h e p u r po r t c d l y

”

s p i d e r e d w i n d s h i e 1d “ a n d

t h e b l o o d a n d s a l i v a on t h e a i r b a g , “ w c know” t h e D e f e n d a n t was s i t t i . n g u p a t thc time of i m p a c t , a n d “ a

person h a v i n q a s c i z u r e d o e s n o t s i t u p . ”

32

(R.A. 9 3 3 -

937, 939-940). Finally,

t h e Commonwealth c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e

a b s e n c e of evj-dence of a s e i z u r e i r i D e f e n d a n t ' s m e d i c a l records

( i. e . , p o s t - a c c i d e n t

t e s l i n y ) and c e r t a i n

i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s in h i s symptoms a f Lcr t h e a c c i d e n t p r o v e d t.hat h e w a s noL e x p e r i e n c i n g a medical c o n d i . t i o n t h a t rendered him unahle t o c o n t r o l h i s car.

(R.A.

920-928). T h e a b o v e - d e s c r i b e d e v i d e n c e t.ends t.o e q u a l l y

supporL two compet.ing t h e o r i e s , a n d d e c i d i r i y Lhe q u e s L i o n of g u i l t on t h i s e v i d e n c e would n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e s p e c u l a t i o n a n d c o n j e c t u r e , and i m p e r m i s s i b l y s h i f t s t h e burden

1.

of p r o o f t o t h e D e f e n d a n t .

Speediriy a n d C r o s s i n g Yellow L j . n e .

The fact thaL Defendant's

miles-per-hour,

cruiser sped t o 52

c r o s s e d t h e y e l l o w l i n e , and f a i l e d t o

brake b e f o r e c r a s h i . n g w e r e evidericc of n e g l i g e n c e i f , a n d on1.y i f , t h e Commonwealth f i r s t p r o v e d beyond a reasor.iable doubt. t . h a t t.he D e f e n d a n t was l e g a l l y

"operating"

t h e c a r when t h e s e c o n d i L i o n s o c c u r r e d .

The t r i a l c o u r t h a d p r e v i o u s l y h e l d d u r i n g t h e t r i a l t h a t t.he Commonwealth c o u l d n o t a r g u e t h a t t h e Defendant was r e a c h i n g f o r a d r i n k o r h i s c e l l phone a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t b e c a u s e t h e r e was n o f a c t u a l b a s i s Lor t h a t argument i n t . h e e v i d e n c e . ( R . A . 1060-1061).

33

However, b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e e l i c i . t e d f r o m t h e Commoriwcalth' s own w i t n e s s e s ,

it w a s e q u a l l y l i k e l y

t h a t t h e s e f a c t o r s were c a u s e d b y a s e i z u r e . "

Indeed,

it d e f i e s l o g i c t.hat a professionally trained p o l i c e o f f i c e r c o u l d have s i m p l y been " i n a t t e n t i v e "

feet

r o a d s p a n of 4 7 4 - 4 8 0 1.5 f o o t b a l l Iields

-

-

the l c r ~ g t hof more t h a n

whi.1,e h i s c r u i s e r ' s e n g i n e was

revving i n f u l l t h r o t t l e f o r 1 1 . 4 seconds. 2.

during a

13

The Rlond a n d S a l i v a on A i r b a g

A s a r g u e d a b o v e , t h e Commonwealth's

f a i l u r e Lo

p r e s e n t any expert w i t n e s s q u a l i f i e d i n s p l a t t e r e v i d e n c e s h o u l d p r e c l u d e a n y r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s from b e i n g drawn r e g a r d i n g t h e presence o f b l o o d a n d s a l i v a on t h e a i r b a g .

However, i f t h i s Court. c o n s i d e r s C h i s

T h e CommonwealLh's r e b u t t a l w i t n e s s , D r . H o c h , t . e s t i f i e d t h a t a s e i z u r e would h a v e r e n d e r e d t h e D e f e n d a n t u n a b l e Lo c o n t r o l h j . s c a r , and i f t h e I l e f e n d a n t ' s f o o t was on t h e a c c e l e r a t o r d u r i n g t h e t o n i c p o r t i o n o f a t o n i c - c 1 . o n i c s e i z u r e , it w o u l d h a v e c a u s e d h i m t o d e p r e s s t h e a c c e l e r a t o r f o r 10-20 s e c o n d s , which comports d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e f o r e n s i c (K.A. 8 8 " / - 8 8 8 ) . evidence presented i n t h i s case. 13 The manner i.n w h i c h t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d was c o m p l e t e l y i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the D c i e n d a n t ' s n o r m a l drivi.nq h a b i t s . D e f e n d a n t ' s f o r m e r pol i c e p a r t r i e r , O f f i c e r David C o s t a , h a d s i g n i f i c a n t . e x p e r i e n c e p a C r o l l i n g w i t . h the D e f e n d a n t a n d o b s e r v i n g h i s driving habits. O f f i c e r C o s t a u s e d Lo j o k i n g t e l l the Defendant t h a t he "drove l i k e an o l d lady" because he drove so s l o w l y , and h e d e s c r i b e d t h e Defendant as a "very c a u t i o u s and c a r e f u l d r i v e r . " (R.A. 509-510).

34

evidence,

i t still i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v e t h e

Defendant w a s s i t t i n y up d u r i n g i m p a c t . 1 4 T h e c r i t i c a l i n q u i r y i s w h e t h e r t h e r e was l e g a l l y

s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e f o r t h e jury t o c o n c l u d e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t when t h e b l o o d and s a l i v a were p l a c e d on t h e a i r b a g .

S t a l e d d i f f e r e n t . l y , was t h e r e l e g a l l y

s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e beyond

=,=

reasonable d o u b t

t h a t t h e blood a n d s a l i v a were d e p o s i t e d on Lhe a i r b a g ipon

irnpacL, or was t . h e r e a n o t h e r e y u a l l y r e a s o n a b l e

e x p l a n a t i o n f o r how Chey g o t t h e r e a f t e r t h e c r a s h ? The e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g when t . h e b l o o d a n d s a l i v a werc p l a c e d on t h e a i r b a g was e n t i r e l y c i r c u m s t a n t . i a 1 and s p e c u l a t i v e , b u t nevertheless,

i t s u p p o r t e d t h e more

l i k e l y i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e y were t r a n s f e r r e d t h e r e a f t e r thc a c c i d e n t i n 1 i q h t o f t h e numerous o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r

t h i s t.o h a v e o c c u r r e d .

T h c r e was undi sput.e:d e v i d e n c e

The t r i a l p r o s e c u t - o r ' s c l o s i n g argument homed i n on t h e blood and s a l i v a on t h e airbaq, arid h e a r g u e d t h a t " t h e o n J y way" t h i s c v i d e n c e c o u l d h a v e g o t t e n t h c r c was when t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s f a c e h j t t h e a i r b a y a t the t i m e of t h e c r a s h . ( H . A . 936-937). The t r i a l j u d g e c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h i s e v i d e n c e a s Lhe "centerpiece" o f t h e Commonwealth's c l o s i n g argument and commented t h a t when Lhe p r o s e c u t o r m a d e t h i s argument r e g a r d i n q t h e b l o o d and s a l i v a , it was a " l i g h t b u l b moment." a t w h i c h t i m e " a l l of a s u d d e n t h i n g s s e e m [ e d ] t o come t o y e t h e r . " (R.A. 1 1 6 7 ) . Therefore, cvcn i n t h e t r j a l c o u r t ' s view, t h e Co~runonwealth's e v i d e n c e a p p e a r e d l e g a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t w i t h o u t the b l o o d and s a l i v a e v i d e n c e . l4

35

t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t was b l e e d i n g and d r o o l i n y f r o m h i s mouth a f t e r t . h e c r a s h .

Moreover, m e d i c a l r e c o r d s

r e f l e c t e d t h a t t h c Defendant had m u l t i p l e a b r a s i o n s and

l a c e r a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g s u p e r f i c i a l c u t s on his h a n d s . I t i s a l s o u n d i s p u t e d t h a t DefendanC was moving a r o u n d

and t r y i n g t o s i t up i n t h e c a r a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , and h e k e p t p u s h i n g away Lhe oxygen mask when j . t was p l a c e d

o v e r h i s b l e e d i n y a n d d r o o l i n g mouth.

I n f a c t , Michael

C a s s o l a t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e was “ c h a s i n g [ t h e D e f e n d a n t ] a r o u n d w i t h t h e oxyqen b e c a u s e h e k e p t movj.ng a n d pushing [Serqeant Cassola‘s] hands.”

(H.A.

46.0).

F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e Defendant was p l a c e d on a backboard w h i l e s t i l l i n s i d e t h e c r u i s e r and t h e n removed from t h e d r i v e r ’ s s i d e o f t h e v e h i c l e . 4 7 1 , 459-461).

(R.A.

Therefore, h i s bloody f a c e passed r i g h t

by t h e d e p l o y e d a i r b a g , and t h e b l o o d a n d s a l i v a c o u l d

e a s i l y h a v e b e e n d e p o s i t e d a t t h a t timc b y t h e Defendant o r any o f h j . s r e s c u e r s .

F i n a l l y , t.he blood

011

Lhe

a i r b a g i s j u s t s e v e r a l s m a l l s p l a t . t . e r e d d r o p s ( s c e R.A.

158), r a t h e r t h a n a smeared p a t t e r n t.hat would l o g i c a l l y b e more c o n s i s t c n t w i t h t h e D e f e n d a n t ‘ s face b e i n g i n

36

d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h t h e a i r b a y nL i m p a c t . 1 5 T h e b l o o d ' s s p l a t t e r appeararicc and a l l t h e o t h e r

e v i d e n c e c i t e d above make i t j.s e q u a l . l y l i k e l y

inore l i k e l y ~

-

-

ii n o t

t h a t t h e b l o o d and s a l i v a on t h e a i r b a g

were L r a n s L c r r c d t h e r e a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t d u r i n y all t h e p o s t - c r a s h a c t i v i ty.'16

3.

Evidence T h a t D e f e r i d a r i L ' s C a r Turrieci S h a r p l y B e f o r e Accident:.

IleaLher Swan a n d Amy Munoz, b o t h c i v i l . i . a n w j t . n e s s e s , t e s t i f i e d Chat Lhc D e f e n d a n t ' s c a r made a n a b r u p t and sharp t u r n immediately b e f o r e h i t t i n g t h e v i c t i m ' s car.

However, M r .

K e l s e y t e s t i f i e d t o t.he

exact o p p o s i t e during h i s direct. examination i n t h e

Commonwealth's

case-in-chief.

Moreover, S e r g e a n t Ryan,

the Commonwealth's a c c j d e n t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t , r e f u t e d

Human b l o o d was also d e t e c t e d on Lhe l e f t s i d e o f t.he I.aptop s t a n d i n D c i e n d a n t ' s c a r , which i s e q u a l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e Defendant h t t i n g t h i s equipment a t impact w h i l e h e was slumped o v e r , rather Lhan b e i n g behi.nd t.he w h e e l . (R.A. 1 4 5 ) . I b Of c o u r s e , w i t h the p o s L - L r i a l disclosure that S e r g e a n t Ryan found n o e v i d e n c e t h a C Lhc D e f e n d a n t was s i t t i n y u p and t h a t t.he damage t o t h e w i n d s h i c l d was not c a u s e d by t h e U e f e n d a n t ' s body s t r i k i n g it. on i m p a c t , t h e Commonwealth's t h e o r y t h a t t h e b l o o d a n d s a l i v a were p l a c e d on t h e a i r b a g d u r i n g t h e c r a s h becomes s i g n i f i c a n L l y l e s s l i k e l y and r e q u i r e s p u r c c o n j e c t u r e and s u r m i s e , and Lhe p i l i n g o f j . n f e r e n c e upon i r i f e r c n c e . A t t h e v e r y l e a s t , it r e q u i r c s expert t e s t i m o n y - not pros e c u t o r i a 1 il r g umen t

.

37

t h i s e v i d e n c e when s h e o p i n e d LhaL:

(1) t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s

c a r " c o n t i n u e d on t h e s C r a i g h t p a t h o f t h e r o a d and f a i l e d t o n e g o t i a t e Lhe curve" (R.A. 6 2 9 ) ;

( 7 ) t h e r e was

n o " e v i d e n c e o f s t e e r i n g " o r " d r i v e r i n p u t " o r "an e v a s i v e maneuver" b e f o r e t h e i m p a c t (R.A. 640, 6 4 8 ) ; and

( 3 ) a s h a r p and s u d d e n t u r n a t

defendant.'^ c o n f i r m e d

s p e e d would lezlvc s k i d marks o r o t h e r e v i d e n c e on t h e roadway, and y e t , s h e d i d n o t f i n d a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e Defendant t r i e d t o s t e e r o u t of L h c way b e f o r e c r a s h i n y (R.A.

612, 6 1 7 ) .

T h e r e f o r e , t h e laws o f p h y s i c s and t h e

u n d i s p u t e d absence o f s k i d m a r k s r e n d e r t h e t e s t i m o n y a b o u t t h e c r u i s e r making a " s h a r p t u r n " b e f o r e i m p a c t c l e a r l y i n a c c u r a t e a n d impossib1.e.

Accordingly, any

i n f c r e n c e s t h e Commonwealth u r g e s h s c d on t h i s i n a c c u r a t e t e s t i m o n y arc unreasonable a s c o n t r a r y t o t h e l a w s o f p h y s i c s . S e e Corson, 4 2 8 Mass. a t 197 ( i n f e r e n c e s m u s t be r e a s u n a b l e a n d p o s s i b l e )

.

Moreover, e v e n i f t h e j u r y d i s r e q a r d e d M r . K e l s e y ' s t e s t i m o n y and S e r g e a n t Ryan's opinion t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s car d i d n o t t u r n p r i . o r t.n i m p a c t , aL b e s t t h i s inconsistent. testimony only provides scant evidence

t h a t i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n Che Commonwealth's b u r d e n o f proof beyond

il

rcasonable doubt.

38

S e e Corson,

428 Mass. at. 1 9 7 ( e v i d e n c e i s n o t s u f f i c i e n L t o overcome a m o t i o n f o r a r e q u i . r e d f i n d i n q u n l e s s i t "allows [ a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] t o d o more t h a n ' f i n d t h a t t h e r e w a s some r e c o r d e v i d e n c e , however s l i g h t . , t o s u p p o r t e a c h e s s e n L i a l element o f t h e o f f e n s e ' " ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ,

y u o t i n g Commonwealth v. Mandile, 4 0 3 Mass. 93, 9 4 (1988) .

Most c e r t a i n l y , " s u f f i c i e n t evidence" c a n n o t be

t e s t - i m o n y t h a t i y n u r e s and o v e r L l y c o n t r a d i c t s t h e known

laws of p h y s i c s .

E. Defendant's Theory Is E q u a l l y Reasonable And Has A Substantial Factual Basis In The Evidence.

C o n t r a r y t o t h e Commonwealth's s u g g e s t i o n , t h i s i s not

case where D e f e n d a n t h a s sjrnply p r o f f e r e d ;In

i l l o g i c a l defense t h e o r y w i t h o u t any f a c t u a l b a s i s i n Lhe evidence a n d t . h e n c h a l l . e n q e d t h e Commonwealth t o refute it.

The 1 ) e f e n d a n t ' s t h e o r y t h a L h e s u f f e r e d a

s e i z u r e o r some o t k c r d e b i l i t a t i n g medj.cal c o n d i t i o n i m m e d i a t e l y p r i o r Lo t h e c r a s h i s a c t u a l l y c o r r o b o r a t c d

hy t h e Cvrnrnonwcalth's

own witnesses.

For i n s t a n c e , M r . K c l s c y t e s t i f i e d t . h a t t h e r e w a s nobody b e h i n d t h e w h e e l when D e f e n d a n t ' s

by him i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e t h e c r a s h .

cruiser fl.ew

T h i s was t h e o n l y

d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y on t h i s c r i t i c a l i s s u e , and t h e

39

Commonwealth d i d n o t o f f e r a n y c o n t r a r y t e s t i m o n y f r o m any of t h e o t h e r e y e w i t n e s s e s t o t h e a c c i d e n t . Moreover,

S e r g e a n t Ryan t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e was

no o p e r a t o r i n p u t f o r t h e 11.4 scconds b e f o r e t h e

crash, except f u r t h e depressed a c c e l e r a t o r .

(R.A.

631-

Out o f t h e 2 0 0 a c c i . d e n t s S e r g e a n t Ryan has

632, 6 5 6 ) .

i n v e s t i g a t e d , t h e r e were o n l y t e n c a s e s w h e r e t h e r e w a s s i m i l a r l y no aLLempt by t h e o p e r a t o r t o e v a d e t h e crash.

(R.A.

645-646).

However, none of t h e c a u s e s o f

t h o s e t e n a c c i d e n t s (i.c., s l e e p i n g d r i v e r , d r u g o r

alcohol irnpairmcnt, o r s u i c i d e ) were p r e s e n t i.n Defendant's case.

(K.A.

646-651).

In fact, i n a l l of

S c r g e a n t Ryan's s i g n i f i c a n t e x p e r i e n c e in a c c i d e n t r e c o n s l r u c t i o n , Defendant's case p r e s e n t e d a complete anoma1.y. ( R . A .

647-648).

With t h e e x c e p t i o n

of Lhc c a r ' s e x c e s s i v e s p e e d

(which c a n be e x p l a i n e d by t h e s e i z u r e ) , S e r g e a n t Ryan conceded t.hat s h e "[had not] bccn a b l e t o develop any e v i d e n c e from a r l y source whatsoever t h a t wou.ld l e a d

[her] Lo the conclus.ion t h a t [ t h e Defendant]

was doing

a n y t h i n g i n a p p r u p r i a l e a t t h e time t h a t [ h i s v e h i c l e 1

i t s p a t h f o r 1 1 . 4 seconds pri0.r t o

continued

011

impact."

(R.A.

662-663,

665; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) .

40

Tn

f a c t , y i v e r i the constellation of factors she found in

this case, she was unable to exclude t . h a t a medical condition contributed to this accj-dent, and she conceded that i t was a “ v i a b l e hypothesis.”

(R.A.

651,

654-655; emphasis added).

Furthermore, Dr. Hoch a l s o aqreed on crassexamination that: ( I ) many of the symptoms Lhe Dcfendant experienced on the day of the accident were sympt.oms he could expect to

SGC

in a person suffering a

scizurc ( R . A . 877-879); (2) nearly 10% o € people will experience a seizure during their lives ( R . A . 884): (3) a seizure would have rendered Lhe Defendant unable to

control his car to prevenL Lhc accident ( R . A . 8 8 7 ) ; arid (4) if the Defendant suffered a tonic-clonic seizure and h i s foot was on thc accelerator, his body would stiffen and press down on the accelerator Lor 10-70 seconds during the tonic phase oF Lhe seizure ( K . A . 887-888).

Dr. Hoch concluded in both his written

reporL and at trial t h a t he c o u l d riot r u l e out a medical e v e n t , i n c l u d i n g a s e i z u r e , a s the cause of

Defendant losing c ~ r i l r o lof h i s car for 11.4 seconds p r i o r t o t h e crash. ( R . A . 8 8 3 . - 0 8 2 ) .

Indeed, Dr. Hoch

also aqreed t t m C it was a “ v i a b l ~medical theory.”

41

(R.A.

8 8 2 ; emphasis

added)

F. The Inability To Corroborate Through Medical Tests That Defendant Suffered A Seizure O r Medical Emergency Does N o t A i d The Commonwealth's Burden Of Proving Operation Beyond A Reasonable D o u b t .

'To t h e e x t e n t t h e Conunonwcalth a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e was n o c o r r o b o r a t i n g m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e Defendant suiicred a s e i z u r e , t h i s i s n o t dispositive."

D r . Hoch t e s t i f i e d on d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n

t h a t a b o u t 30%-50% of t h e t i m e , d o c t o r s d o n o t f i . n d a c a u s e for a s e i z u r e , and b a s e d on h i s r e v i e w of t h e I3efendanL's m c d i c a l r e c o r d s , h e " m n ' t be m e d i c a l l y c e r t a i n abouL what a c t u a l l y happened d u r i n g t h e event"

(R.A. 8 4 5 , 855; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . cross-examination,

F u r t h e r m o r e , on

D r . Hoch a g r e e d t h a t , when a p e r s o n

s u f f e r s a s e i z u r e , i n p a r L i c u l a r a f i r s t . o n e , t h e r e may

n o t be a n y i d e n t i f i a b l e m e d i c a l e v i d c n c c a f t e r w a r d s . (R.A.

865).

He also a d m i t t e d t h a t when p e o p l e come

i n t . 0 an emergency room w i t h a f i r s t s e i z u r e , it f r e q u e n t l y yocs u n r e c o g n i a e d .

(K.A.

866-86.1)

.

T h e r e i o r c , even t h e Commonwealth's r e b u t La1

'?Of cause, a L no p o i n t was i t t h e U e f e n d a n t ' s b u r d e n t o prove h e s u f f e r e d a s c i L u r e o r o t h e r medical e v e n t hecause t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g n e g l i g e n t o p e r a t i o n was a l w a y s on t h e Conunonwealth.

42

expert's testimony negates any significance the Commonwealth m a y place on Lhc absence of documented medical evidence that. Defendant suffered

a

seizure.

Where it was undisputed that sometimes no medical evidence exists to confirm a seizure occurred, the Conunonwealth' s suggestion that the Defendant did not.

prove he suffered

a

seizure not only improper1.y shifts

the burden of proof, b u t it also places an impossible burden on the Defendant, who could not control what medical tests were (or were n o t ) done in the hospital.

In summary, the evidence

-

even when viewed in

the light most. favorable to the Commonwealth

-

presented two equally reasonable and inconsistcnL theories as to the cause of the accident, and therefore, the Commonwealth failed to prove an essential element of the offense charged law.

as a rnaLLer

of

See Corsori v . Commonwealth, 428 Mass. at 197, and

cases cited therein. See a l s o Berry v. Commonwealth,

393 Mass. at 7 9 5 - 7 9 6 .

Accordingly, all of the

Defendant's motions F o r a required findinq of not g u i l . t y should havc been allowed and any re-trial on

this same criminal charge is barred based on double jeopardy p r i n c i - p l e s .

See Corson, 428 Mass. at 201;

43

Berl^y, 393 Mass. a t 799-800.

11,

THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WHERE THE TRIAL PROSECUTOR VIOLATED ETHIC7U RULE 3 . 8 ( j ) OF THE S.J.C.’S RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, AND HE FORCED THE DEFENDANT INTO MOVING FOR A MISTRIAL BY MAKING IMPROPER ARGUMENTS IN HIS CLOSING ABOUT WINDSHIELD DAMAGE, BLOOD AND SALIVA WHICH WERE NOT BASED ON ANY SUPPORTING FACTS OR EXPERT OPINIONS AFTER HE INTENTIONALLY AVOIDED ELICITING ANY TESTIMONY ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS DURING THE ENTIRE TRIAL. I L i s c l e a r from t h e D i s c o v e r y NoLice t h a t t h e

t r i a l p r o s e c u t o r p l a n n e d t o a r g u e t h a t t h e damage t o t h e w i n d s h i e l d a n d t h e b l o o d and s a l i v a uri Lhc a i r b a g p r o v e d t h e D e f e n d a n t was s i t t i n g u p a t t h e L i m e o f impact, and

t h a t . h e had formed t h i s t h e o r y b c f o r e o r d u r j n g h i s p r e L r i a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h S e r q e a n t Ryan on March 7 , 7 0 0 8 . (R.A.

993).

That notwithstandinq,

-

of S c r g e a n t Ryan

he f a i l e d t o i n q u i r e

h i s own a c c i d e n t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t

-

w h e t h e r there was a n y e v i d e n c e in s u p p o r t o f h i s 1s

i n t e n d e d theory.

I f t h e t r i a l p r o s e c u t o r had i n q u i r e d

A t the senLcncing hearing, t h e t r i a l judge asked t h e t r i a l p r o s e c u t o r : “ [ D l i d you i n L e n t i o n a l l y n o t a s k [Lor S e r g e a n t . R y a n ‘ s o p i n i u n ] b e c a u s e you t h o u q h t you were g o i n g t o g e t a n a r i s w c r you d i d n ‘ t w a n t ? ” (R.A.

1 1 9 8 ; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . The t r i a l p r o s e c u t o r never d i r e c t l y answercd t h e t r i a l . j u d g e ‘ s q u e s t i o n , b u t i n s t c a d s a i d t h a t he thought S c r g e a n t Ryan‘s o p i n i o n was “ t h a t i t was u n l i k e l y ” Lhat D e f e n d a n t ‘ s head was Che s o u r c e o f t h e damayc t o t h e w i n d s h i e l d . (R.A. 1 1 9 9 ; e m p h a s’i s a d d e d ) .

44

on t h i s s u b j e c t , he would h a v e l e a r n e d n o t o n l y t h a t

t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e Lo s u p p o r t h i s t h e o r y , b u t i n

f a c t , t h e damage t.o t h e w i n d s h i e l d was most l i k e l y “ i n d u c e d ” by t h e f o r c e of t h e c r a s h and i t w a s p o s s i b l e t h a t Lhc D e f e n d a n t was not s i t t i n g u p based on t h e

evidence.

(R.A.

994).

I t i s a l s o u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t.he t r i a l p r o s e c u t o r

c o m p l e t e l y a v o i d e d t h e s u b j e c t s of t h e w i n d s h i e l d a n d t h e b l o o d a n d s a l i v a on the a i r b a y d u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y p h a s e of L r i a l .

23).

(R.A.

1141-1142;

SJ T r .

I n d e e d , t h e t r j . a l j u d g e acknowledged t h a t . t h e

t r i a l p r o s e c u t o r n e v e r a s k e d any q u e s t i o n s o f t h e w i t n e s s e s a b o u f t h e w i n d s h i e l d o r t h e blood and s a l i v a on t.he a i r h a q d u r i n g Lhe e n t i r e t r i a l , which t h e c o u r t viewed a s a reasonab1.e t - r i a l s t r a t e g y . t h e c o u r t r e a s o n e d t - h a t “ m a y b e [Lhc

Specifically,

prosecutor] w a s

k e e p i n g h i s cards c l o s e to t h e vest bccause he d . i d n ‘ t

want [the defense] to knock h i s witnesses around it:

.

. . .“

(R.A.

1145; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) .

The t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r e a s o n i n g and r u l i n q a r e

4s

dmut

completely c o n t r a r y t o t h e b l a c k l e t t e r a n d s p i r i t of R u l e 3 . 8 ( j ) of t h e Supreme J u d i c i a l C o u r t ' s Hu?.es of

P r o f e s s i o n a l ConclucL.

Rule 3 . 0 ( j ) p r o v i d e s t h a t a

proseciit.or s h a l l riot " i n t e n t i o n a l 1 y a v o i d p u r s u i t of e v i d c n c e b e c a u s e t h e p r o s e c u L o r b e l i e v e s i t w i l l damage

the p r o s e c u t i o n ' s

c a s e o r ;lid Lhc a c c u s e d . "

(Add.1).

The u n d e r p i n n i n g oi t h i s r u l e i.s t h e fundanionla1 p r i n c i p l e t h a t a p r o s e c u t o r ' s d u t y i s t o search f"or' the t r u t h , n o t t.o secure a g u i l t y v e r d i - c t by " k e e p i n g h i s c a r d s d o s e t o h i s vest." t o prot.ecL h i s w i t n e s s e s from cross-examination

designed t o fetter out t h e t r u t h .

Comment 1 Lo R u l e 3 . 0

("la1

See

prosccutor has t h e

r e s p o n s i - b i l i t y oi a m i n i s t e r of j u s t i c e and n o t si.mply

that of a n a d v o c a t e . " )

(Add.2).

C r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i s Lhe most. u s e f u l t o o l i n o u r a d v e r s a r i a l t r i a l s y s t e m t o uncover t h e t r u t h , and for a p r o s c c u f o r t o p u r p o s e f u l l y a v o i d a c r i t i c a l a r e a of i n q u i r y t o p r o t e c t h i s w i t - n e s s e s from a r i g o r o i l s c r o s s c x a m i n a t i on i s tarilamuunt. t o s u p p r e s s i n g t h e t r u t h .

t.ri a 1 c o u r C ' s r e a s o n i n q also i y n o r e s t h e we1 1-

46

The

e s t a h .she, p r i n c i G

3

ha

1\

p r o s e ct: J r s a r e

.Id

Lo

I

stricter s t a n d a r d of conduct than a r e e r r a n t defense Comrr~onwca1l;hv . Arroyo, 4 4 2

counsel and t h e i r c l i e n t s . "

Mass. 135, 1 4 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( p r o s e c u t o r ' s a r q u m e n t , For which h e k n e w t h e r e w a s no e v i d e n t i a r y s u p p o r t i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l , was " w h o l l y i m p r o p e r " ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h o Commonwealth d i s c 1 o s e d d u r i n g o r a l argurricnL b e f o r e the S i n q l e J u s t i c e t i i a L i t d i d n o t a s k

i t s witnesses about t h e blood

OL

s a l i v a on t h e a i r b a g

b e c a u s e i t s witnesses were n o t q u a l , i f i e d t u t e s f i f y reyarding splatter evidence.

(SJ T r . 2 3 - 2 4 ) .

Acceptinq

t h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a s true, Lhe t r i a l p r o s e c u t o r kr.!cw

o r s h o u l d have k n o w n that h i s comments a b o u t t h i s e v i d e n c e d u r i n g h j s clo:;ing were u n s u p p o r t e d a n d h i y h l y improper.

Having n o t h i n y tu l o s e b e c a u s e t h e

Commonwealth was f a c i n g a c e r t a i n "not g u i l t y " v e r d i c t , t . h e t r i a l p r o s e c u t o r made t . h e improper a r g u m e n t s anyhow,

t h e r e b y f o r c i n g Ciefendant t o move f o r a m i s t r i a l .

In summary, t.he p r o s e c u t o r ' s c o n d u c t i.n t h i s cast was e q r e q i o u s a n d r i s e s t o t.he l e v e i 01 m i s c o n d u c t

47

warrant ig di n DefendanL.

t

aga1 ;t Lh

cha

Sce Commonwealth v. Manning, 3 1 3 Mass. 438,

444 (1977). See a l s o Commonwea1t.h v. Murckiison, 392

Mass. 773, 274 (1984) (prosccutorial misconduct (:an require dismissal of complaint on d o u b l e jeopardy grounds if government‘s action is intended to goad defendant into moving for mistrial)

.

The Commonwealth

has already had its one opportunity to try the Ilefendant for motor vehicle homicide,

Simply awarding the

Defendant a new trial under these ci.rcumstances is a Although a mist.rjal qenerally docs not bar a retrial undcr double jeopardy principles, the two noted exceptions to this rule are when (1) the prosecutor’s misconduct is int.ended to provoke a mistrial, or (2) the defendant suffers irremedial harm and cannot_ get a faj.r trial thereailcr. See Commonwealth v . Murchison, 392 Mass. 2 7 3 , 276 (1984), citing Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 6 6 . / , 676 (1982). The first exception is a prophylactic sanction that does not require a showiny of prc judice . Here, the trial prosecutor‘s conduct i s far morc egregi.ous t.han where a prosecutor starts il trial wit.h good i-ntentions, but the case ultimately does not unfold a s well as originally hoped, so hc goads defense counsel into moving for a mistrial. Here, the trial prosccutor k n e w from t h e irlccppl-ion that h i . s t-heory about the windshield was noC supported by Scrgeant Ryan, he failed Lo present any expert witncss on splatter evidence, 2nd hc scrupulously avoided eliciting a n y tcsLimony about these subjecLs during the entj.re trial. Therefore, t.he t-rial prosecutor’s ambush in his closing argument appears to have been orchestraLcd from the very beginniny of trial.

48

woefully insu

.cienL remedy t o o f f s e t . t h e

Commonwealth's b l a t a n t f a i l u r e Lo u p h o l d i t s f u n d a m e n t a l f u n c t i o n o f s e a r c h i n g Lor Lhe t r u t h , w h i c h d e p r i v e d Defendant o f h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l . .See Mannirlg,

3 1 3 Mass. a t 4 4 4 .

CONCLUSION For a l l t h e a b o v e - s t a t e d r e a s o n s , t h e D e f e n d a n t r e s p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t s t h a t . t h i s Honorable C o u r t :

(1)

r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s Motion f o r a R e q u i r e d F i n d i n g o f Not Gui.1ty;

( 2 ) v a c a t e t h e judgmenll

o f c o n v i c t j o n ; and ( 3 ) d i r e c t t h e t r i a l court t o e n t e r a judgment of " N o t Gui1t.y" i n t h i s ~riatLcr. See Commonwealth v . CardcnuLo, 4 0 6 Mass. 4 5 0 , 453 (1990).

A1 L c r n a t i v e l y , t h e Defendant r e s p e c t f u 1 ly r e q u e s t s Lhat t h i s H o n o r a b l e C o u r L : convicLion:

(1) v a c a t e t h e judgment o f

a n d ( 7 ) d i r e c t t h c t r i a l c o u r t to eriLcr a n

order dismissing, with prejudice, t h e complaint ayainst

t h e D e f e n d a n t a s an a p p r 0 p r i a t . e s a n c t i o r i a n d d e t e r r e n t a q a i n s L t h e CommonwealLk.

See Commonwealth v . Manning,

373 Mass. aL 444-445 ( 1 9 7 7 ) .

49

Respectfully submitted, S'I'UAHT MERRY,

By his attorneys,

ROSSMAN & ROSSMAN

Marketplace Center 200 StaLe Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 439-9559

L . A # L F Carlene A .

P e n n e l l , BBO#6 1175

Law Office of C a r l e n e A. Pennell 86 Leavitt S t r e e L Hingham, MA 07.043 (781) 556-5370

DaLed:

August 28, 2008