You are on page 1of 57

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 ............................ iv

A. Cases ................................ iv

€3 . OLher Authorities .................... vi

ISSUES PRESEN'I'b:L, ................................ 1

STATEMEN'I' OF T I E CASE ........................... 1

Prior Proceedings .......................... 1

Statemcnt of the FacLs ..................... 5

A. Ere-Trial Invcstigation By The


Essex D.A.':; Office .................... 5

B . Pre-Trial InvestiyaLion By The


Suffolk D.A.'S O f f i c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

C. The T r i a l ............................. 7

1. The Commonwealth's Case .......... /

2. The Defendant's Case ............. 12

3. The Commonwealth's Rebuttal. . . . . . . 13

4. C l . o s i n g Arguments ................ 15

0 . Post-Trial Motior.is .................... 1'1

E. The Heariny On May 6. 2008 ............ 19

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMbtNT .......................... 20

1
ARGUMENT ......................................... 22

I. 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 .................................... 22

A. The S t a n d a r d Of R e v i e w .................. 21

B. '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 .............................. 25

1. T h e D a m a g e T o T h e Windshie1.d ..... 25

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 ........................... 26

C. 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

D. 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

1. S p e e d i n y and C r o s s i n q Yellow
L i n e ............................. 33

2. T h e B l o o d And Saliva On A i r b a g . . _3 4

ii
3. 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 ................................. 42

11. 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 ................................ 44

CONCLUSION ...................................... 49

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 - Two V o l u m e s )

I
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

A. Cases

Altman v. Aronson,
231 Mass. 588 (1919) ........................ 3 0 , 31

Atlas T a c k Corp. v. Donabed,


47 Mass. App. Ct. 221 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Aucella v. Commonwcalth,
406 Mass. 415 (1990) ........................ 29, 31

Berry v. Commonwealth,
393 M ~ S S .793 (1985) ........................ 23, 24,
43

Callahan v. Lach,
338 Mass. 233 (1958) ........................ 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) ........................ 31

Orcgon v . Kennedy,
456 U . S . 667, 676 ( 1 9 0 2 ) .................... 48

B. 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 . ' T h e Esscx District

Attorney's 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. 168). The DefenclanL moved 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 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 (R.A. 1074), a f t e r t h c

D e f e n d a n t ' s case ( K . A . 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 . 1102). All t h r e e

moLions were d e n i e d o r a l l y . ( 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
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 . [page
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 ( Motion”), p u r s u a n t L o Mass. R. Crim. P.

2 S ( b ) (2 . (R.A. 54-147). On April 30, 2008 - six

w e o k s a f t e r t h e trial - 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 il iC 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 110 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

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 or1

D e f e n d a n t ' s Mution, 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 . c. 211, 53

("Petition"), 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 ll bv 3 i 11 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 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 .

(R.A. 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. (H.H. 9Y4).

B. 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 . (R.A.

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 di.scussion with

S e r g e a n t Ryan, 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 (K.A. 993).

4
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." (-
Id.). 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

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 . ) .

C. The Trial

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 . (R.H. 514-

51G). Between 6:45 a.m.-8:15 a.m., 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. (H.A. 4 0 9 - 4 1 1 ,

474-476, 492-493, 505-506). 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
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. Such
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
h e was u p r i g h t o r n o t . I t i s only material because
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
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 . " (K.H. 9 4 0 ) .

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 . (R.A.

516-517). A t a b o u t 9:20 a.m. 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 LI

30-miles-an-hour zone on Cabot S t r e e t i n B e v e r l y , MA.

(R.A. 331-32, 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. (R.A. 213,

272-2’13). 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 . (R.A.

332-334, 351) . 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

side. (R.A. 310, 33'7-338, 372-373, 392, 417, 435,

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

b r u i s e d and s w o l l e n . (R.A. 418). 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 . (R.A.

1215, 1 2 1 6 , 1 2 1 7 , 1221, 1226, 1 2 3 0 ) . 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 . (R.A. 393, 403,

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

his mouth. (R.A. 402).

As t i m e 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

y r a b b i n g h i s head and moving h i s h a n d s . " (R.A. 4 4 0 ) .

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. (R.A. 4%1, 459-

461). 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 eye c o n t a c t . .

(R.A. 444-445, 460, 463-4663 . 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 . (R.A. 619, 6 5 0 ) .

On January 2 5 , 2007, 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 . 517-

510). 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 . 519-522).

2. 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: (1) Gerard D.

Murphy, an accident reconstructionist (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 . 679). 'The

12
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 Seven-

Elevcn 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. (R.A. 081-882). I n f a c t , / I r . Iluch

-
conceded t h a t thc D e f e n d a n t ' s a c c o u n t f o r t h e c a u s c of

14
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 10-

20 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. (K.A.

1141-1142; SJ Tr. 23). 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 - for the

f i r s t t i m e d u r i n g closj.ng argument - a p h o t o g r a p h of

the drivcr's 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 il

s e i z u r e d o e s n o t s i t up."' (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
a i r b a g deployed." (R.A. 9 3 7 ; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ] . T h e s e
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

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 . (R.A.

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).

E. The Hearinq on May 6 , 2 0 0 8

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. 1130, 1 1 3 2 ) . Although t h e t r i a l

judge found, 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 , and x i y

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 . (R.A.


1.1 61 ) . The t r i a l j u d y c dcnied t h e defendant.'^ renewed

motion (Add. 35-36), 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]. In fact,

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 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 pre-

i 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 110L

exist. [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]. 'This c o n d u c t v i o l a t e d R u l e : 3 . R ( j ) of t h e

S.J.C.'s 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 . LBr.45-471.

Moreover, 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 . The

21
prosecutor was facing a certain "riot guilty verdict" at

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 . [ Rr .47-4 91 .

I. 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 I. erne of t h e crime beyond a

reasonable doubt." 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 (19.79). Ilowcvcr, " t o s u s t a i . n t h e

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

Scc 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 . See Corson v.

Cornmonwcalth, 4 2 8 Mass. 1 9 3 , (1998), citing CommonwealLh

v. M a n d j l e ,
I 403 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

therein. 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

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." Comnioriwcalth v . Webster, 5

Cush. 295, 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 catic - Lhe e v i d e n c e i s

24
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 . See Commonwealth v .

-
Croft, 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).

B. 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.

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 , t h a t t h e damaqe t o t h e

w i n d s h i e l d was c;luscd b y t h e defendant.'^ head s t r i k i n g

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

crash 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 ;1 b i g p a r t of i t s

case. (SJ T r . / 2 3 ) . 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 , how t h a t
when a n d -
~

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

lU 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

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 . C:f.

Col u c c i v . Rosen, G o l d b e r g , S l a v e t , 1Levenson & WcksLein,

-
P.C., 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 iable). Cf. A t - l a s Tack C o r p . v.

Donabed, 4 7 Mass 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, ( 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

or safety, (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, 6 Mass. App. C t . 697, 699

(1,978). 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. " A u c e l l a v . Commonwealth, 406 M a s s .

415, 417 ( 1 9 9 0 ) .

29
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 . (R.H.

917). "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." McGovcrn v . Tinglof, 344

Mass 114, 11.1 (1962). 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 . ” (R.A. 9 3 3 -

32
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 of p r o o f t o t h e D e f e n d a n t .

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

The fact thaL Defendant's cruiser sped t o 52

miles-per-hour, 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 " during a

r o a d s p a n of 4 7 4 - 4 8 0 feet - the l c r ~ g t hof more t h a n

1.5 f o o t b a l l Iields - whi.1,e h i s c r u i s e r ' s e n g i n e was


13
revving i n f u l l t h r o t t l e f o r 1 1 . 4 seconds.

2. 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
evidence presented i n t h i s case. (K.A. 8 8 " / - 8 8 8 ) .
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

l4 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 .

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 . (R.A.

4 7 1 , 459-461). 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 - ii n o t

inore l i k e l y
~ - 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. S e e Corson,

38
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 cruiser fl.ew

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 . 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-

632, 6 5 6 ) . 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

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

continued 011 i t s p a t h f o r 1 1 . 4 seconds pri0.r t o

impact." (R.A. 662-663, 665; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . Tn

40
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 crass-

examination 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 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , on

cross-examination, 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 as a rnaLLer of

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

of S c r g e a n t Ryan - 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 . (R.A. 1141-1142; SJ T r .

23). 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 . Specifically,

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 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 dmut

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
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 . See

Comment 1 Lo R u l e 3 . 0 ("la1 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 . The

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
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

counsel and t h e i r c l i e n t s . " Comrr~onwca1l;hv . Arroyo, 4 4 2

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 t cha aga1 ;t Lh

DefendanL. 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 re-


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

convicLion: 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

You might also like