Articles Posted in Murder

As the dust settles on last week’s verdicts, and non-verdicts, in the Mattapan Massacre Matter, we have had a few days to calm down and reflect. Assumptions abounded as the week came to a close last week and conclusions were drawn by many.

Hey, I got caught up in it too.

On Thursday, I was questioned on both WBZ, am, and WBUR, fm’s show “Radio Boston”. The latter interview you can hear here if you wish.

As you may recall, my assumption was, when we found out there was one hold-out juror, that the hold-out wanted an acquittal. Then, when I learned that the returned verdicts were all acquittals, I assumed that the hold-out was for convictions (which tends to be rare). As it turns out, the lone juror was indeed for acquittals. The jurors were basically torn between the defendants.

“So, is there anything we can glean from that?”

To some degree, yes. The jury seems to have not totally rejected Mr. Washington’s (hereinafter, the Witness”) testimony. However, most of the jurors were ready to use his testimony to help convict Mr. Moore (the defendant who received the mistrials).

The reactions to the jury verdict ranged from anguish to jubilation. Then, “experts” like us weighed in to read minds and foretell the future. Finally, some people declared that the trial’s results showed us that the system works.

In one respect, I would suggest that the proposition that the system “worked” is undeniable. Whether you agree with the results or not, it is clear that the jurors put thought into their votes. They took the time to dissect the evidence and, instead of delivering results in one fell swoop, they concentrated on each count. Finally, it would appear, that they stuck to their guns once they had come to a decision.

One thing that was remarkable, I thought, was when the jury came back at the end of the day Wednesday. It was clear that the judge was not going to send them back to deliberate if they continued to indicate that they were deadlocked. She asked them to think about it and get back to her if they thought it was any point to return the next day to try and continue.

I was sure that this was it. The end was coming by the end of the afternoon.

Instead, the jury panel decided to try some more.
Continue reading

Well, more information came out regarding the presently hanging jury in the Manhattan Massacre murder matter.

Yesterday, when I posted the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog, I was unaware of the breakdown of the split in the jury panel. Word has it that there is one lone juror who is holding out from the rest of them in the remaining criminal charges.

So what happens now?

“Sam, isn’t this that situation like in the movie 12 Angry Men, where one lone juror is the holdout for “not guilty” and, finally, one by one, all the other jurors come see things his way?”

In Movieland, yes. In reality, probably not.

“So what then? The other jurors come and beat him into submission?”

No, not that either. We would see another criminal case coming out of that…bullying to say the least.

“Do we know what the problem is…what the jurors are arguing about?”

We do apparently. Yesterday, the jury indicated that it might help the deadlock if the judge were to give them, again, the definition of “reasonable doubt”. Therefore, I would imagine that the definition of reasonable doubt is the hang-up.

“

Well does that tell us anything?”

Yes, I think it does.

Obviously, either one or eleven jurors, to some degree, believe the case as the Commonwealth presented it. The remainder is not convinced enough. That remainder are saying that the defendants’ guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hence, there is a disagreement in the jury room as to what “reasonable doubt” means
The debate as to what reasonable doubt means is not new. It is a bit of a confusing standard and it is kind of “squishy” in definition. It is not exact. It boils down to a doubt to which you can attach a reason. Of course, that reason has to be a reasonable reason.

For this case, let me give you a couple of examples. In my opinion, it would be unreasonable for the reasonable doubt to be that the government’s witness is a involved in a conspiracy lead by aliens from another planet who wish to take over the earth and the railroading of the defendants is merely a step in said scheme.. A reasonable doubt would be not believing the witness because he’s a liar and a rat and the physical evidence contradicts what he says.

Of course, that’s just my opinion.

I doubt that the issue here is an extra terrestrial conspiracy. My guess is that it involves the Commonwealth’s chief witness in the issues that we’ve discussed over the last couple of weeks.

“Given your experience, if you had to guess, what do you think is going on here?”

Continue reading

Last week, the jury in the Mattapan Massacre Murder Matter began its deliberations.

Yesterday, they announced that they had reached a decision. Sort of.

The jury charged with deciding the case against the two men accused in the 2010 Mattapan massacre (hereinafter, the “Defendants”) has reached a verdict on 10 of the 19 charges submitted to it. However, they claim to be deadlocked on the remaining 9. According to the Commonwealth, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Christine McEvoy sent the jury home for the rest of the day, but they are to return this morning. The judge is likely to give the jurors additional jury instructions that are reserved for this type of situation.

The verdicts that have been decided have been sealed and not published.

You must know the story of the Mattapan Massacre by now. The Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog spent a great deal of time on it last week. Basically, it is called one of the worst homicides in the city’s recent history. In what is described as a drug deal gone sour, four people were killed on September 28, 2010. Two of these people were a mother and her 2-year-old son. A Fifth person was shot and seriously injured.

The Commonwealth’s star witness was a gentleman (hereinafter, the “Gentleman”) who admitted to being one of three guys, the Defendants being the other two, who went to rob the victims who ended up being shot. He claimed to have left , though, before the shooting began. The Commonwealth made a deal with the Gentleman to testify for it against the Defendants in return for a deal which saved him from facing life in prison without the chance for parole. Of course, other evidence in the case , including physical evidence, seemed to refute the Gentleman’s testimony…but that did not seem to disturb the Commonwealth.

After all, the Gentleman said he was not there for the shooting…and, heck almighty man, why would he fib? He may have even promised…!

Of course, that is a dead horse that we kicked pretty well during the trial.

While the jury have not asked any questions, they did request a printed copy of Judge Christine McEvoy’s legal instructions for deliberations.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Mistrials And Mixed Verdicts

Ok, first of all, what do we know about yesterday’s jury development?
Continue reading

The juries in the Mattapan Massacre and Rutgers cyber-bullying/hate crime trials are deliberating, they are not the only ones. The wheels of Justice grind on…for better or for worse…every day. In Lawrence Superior Court, for example,another jury deliberates.

The jury is the second to hear this case. It is the retrial of former Lynn gentleman Jerome McNulty, 34, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”). The Defendant is charged with stabbing his girlfriend to death outside her Salem apartment 11 years ago. The girlfriend, Linda Correisa, 27, suffered some 15 stab wounds to her neck, back and arms in the March 29, 2001 incident. Her 10-year-old daughter and 20-year-old baby sitter were also stabbed.

At the first trial, the Defendant was found guilty and, since, his criminal appeal was successful. The murder conviction relating to Ms. Correisa was overturned.

At the first trial, in 2004, the Defendant testified in his own behalf. He asserted that Ms. Correia came at him with a “butterfly” knife while they were arguing over another woman he was dating. He claimed that he then went into a dissociative state brought on by post-traumatic stress disorder, the result of a difficult childhood.

At the 2012 trial, the defense lawyer portrayed the Defendant as a man set upon by a series of women with knives (similar to a previous statement the Defendant had made). The prosecutor argued that the Defendant was cold and “indifferent” to Ms. Correia’s suffering as she begged for help, unable to breathe and bleeding from 15 stab wounds.
She also told the jury that the extent of Ms. Correia’s injuries shows that this was not a case of self-defense but of murder in the first degree, both through extreme atrocity or cruelty and premeditation.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Self-Defense And Prior Testimony

The previous conviction was overturned due to actions attributed to the police officer involved. The Defendant’s lawyer had called the police station where he was being held and left word to tell the Defendant not to make any statements. The officers failed to pass this message on and took the Defendant’s statement anyway. The prosecution, naturally accepting whatever the police gave it, used the statements.
Continue reading

So…as the attorneys, parties, judge and jury rest up this weekend and get ready to final arguments, charge from the judge and jury deliberations, the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog finishes this four-part discussion about this case in terms of credibility. Primarily, the credibility of a witness like Kimani Washington (hereinafter, the “Witness”)

In my last posting, we discussed how witnesses such as this one can force the prosecution to turn its own arguments on its head. For example, arguments that a prosecutor would scoff while arguing that a testifying defendant has a motive to lie will need to be changed in order to argue that the Witness, who also has a motive to lie is worthy of belief.

Of course, in the Mattapan case, this may not catch the prosecutor in such a conundrum. It would appear that neither defendant is going to testify. If a defendant does not testify, that defendant does not put his credibility in question.

“Why wouldn’t the defendants testify?”

That is the subject for another day. However, if they do not testify, the jury will be told that it cannot hold the silence against the defendant.

“So, doesn’t that mean that only one side of the story will be told?”

Not necessarily. Cross-examination is a critical tool for a defense attorney. This is particularly true if that attorney has experience and training in how to use it.

Through cross-examination, the defense can often get its point across to the jury without even having to put a witness of its own on the stand.
Continue reading

The topic the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog has been discussing over the past couple of days dovetails nicely with something we discussed last week.

The bottom line connection?

Credibility.

A witness’ credibility and the credibility of the attorney who calls that witness to the stand.

The jury in the Mattapan Murder trial that they are likely to receive the case next week. Prior to their deliberations, of course, there will be closing arguments by the attorneys who are trying the case.

Expect to hear the word “Rat” used any number of times when discussing the Commonwealth’s star witness, Kimani Washington (hereinafter, the “Witness”). In fact, you likely heard at least allusion to such a title during his cross-examination.

You see, in street parlance, a “rat” is someone who turns around and testifies against his co-perpetrators in return for a deal or more generous treatment. The more court-friendly term is “co-operating witness”. Such titles can bring on special privileges or penalties, depending on who is meting out such things. In a trial court, such as this, it is up to the jury to decide whether such a witness is worthy of belief.
Continue reading

Here I am….bringing you bad news again. The Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog is saddend to tell you that you have been involved in a shooting. You and a few others went to try to conduct a simple robbery, but it did not go as smoothly as planned. You all had guns and you used them. You got away ok, but the police have come to your home.

To talk about the resulting murders.

The detectives tell you that five people were shot, many of them dead. You blurt out that you did not kill anybody and the police start saying something that is rather hard for you to believe.

Despite the fact that you have a criminal record long enough to wallpaper your room, the Detectives say that they know you are basically a “good guy”. You wouldn’t do this. Not you! On the other hand, they know you were there. They figure you left before the shooting began, though. They make it clear that if this is how it went down, you just have to help them get the “bad guys” who did the shooting and you can be a prosecution witness instead of a criminal defendant.

By the way, Murder One is punished by a sentence of Life without parole in Massachusetts.

What would you do?

Let’s bend our imaginations and assume that you agree to what they say and you identify the others who were with you, making sure you insist you left before the shooting ever started. A little time goes by, and suddenly one of the guns used that night turn up…in your house! Not only that, it has your brother’s fingerprints on it!!! Oh, did I mention that the gun matches bullets found in one of the homicide victims?

Is the gig up?

Well, you shrug and explain that your brother came in the other day, saw the gun (which you have never seen before), picked it up, said “nice gun” and put it back. That’s all.

Time stands still as you watch the agents of the law look at each other with straight faces. Then, they smile, shrug and each say, “Yeah, that makes sense. Sounds good to me!”
Continue reading

As you probably know, the trial about he so-called “Mattapan Massacre” has been
going on in Boston’s Suffolk Superior Court.

The case involves a multiple homicide in which four people including a
2-year-old boy were killed and a fifth man was shot but survived. The event
took place on September 28, 2010.

Yesterday, there was testimony that a .40-caliber handgun which was linked to the Massacre was found in the home of the prosecution’s star witness, Kimani Washington (hereinafter, the “Witness”).

According to Boston police detective Martin Lydon two .40-caliber shell casings were found near the intersection where the shooting occurred.

Lydon said those shell casings matched a .40-caliber Iberia found by police in Washington’s family’s home at 45 Fowler St. in Dorchester. The Witness, 36, has already testified he participated in a drug robbery of murder victim Simba Martin, but left before shooting began.

Which is likely how he is a Commonwealth witness in this case instead of being on trial as a defendant.
Continue reading

As a result of a Saturday night incident, a Massachusetts juvenile and young adult will not be returning to school today.

One of the youths, a 16-year-old male(hereinafter, the “Defendant”) was arrested and charged with illegally carrying a Massachusetts firearm and ammunition. The matter is more than just another Boston gun possession case. The Boston Police Department became aware of the Defendant as they responded to a scene nearby in the South End after an 18-year-old male (hereinafter, the “Deceased”) had been fatally shot.

Law enforcement is unsure as to whether the Boston homicide and gun possession are related in any case. In fact, Boston Police spokesman James Kenneally said yesterday that no arrests have been made in connection with the homicide.

Clearly, the Boston criminal investigation continues.

What officials are ready to reveal is that the Defendant was among four folks in a gold-colored vehicle which officers stopped along Annunciation Road Saturday night about 1 mile from Tremont and West Brookline streets. It was at that location that police said they found the Deceased suffering from multiple gunshot wounds at about 7:20 p.m. Officers further indicated that the vehicle matched a description of a vehicle seen leaving the scene.

The occupants of the vehicle are said to have fled, during which chase the Defendant is alleged to have tossed the gun. The officers apprehended him…and the gun.

The Deceased was pronounced dead at Boston Medical Center.

A police officer seeking information from potential witnesses or those who knew the teen spoke with some of those who stopped at yesterday’s memorial.

Police urged anyone with information to call the homicide unit at 617-343-4470, or anonymously through the CrimeStoppers Tip Line at 1-800-494-TIPS.

Are you a youth? Do you have kids? Do you ever hang around with kids? Or people with guns?

You may want to read on, because there is something you should know.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Massachusetts Juveniles And Murder Cases

As an experienced Boston criminal lawyer, as well as a former New York prosecutor, I have been involved in my share of criminal investigations. It is axiomatic that the higher the profile of these matters the more pressure there is put on law enforcement to solve them.
Continue reading

Nathaniel Fujita (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) has been charged with the Wayland murder of his ex-girlfriend, Lauren Astley (hereinafter, the “Deceased”).

The 18-year-old Defendant has been charged with a number of crimes, including first-degree murder. The case is pending in Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn. The body of the 18-year-old Deceased was discovered on July 4th off Route 27 in Wayland in a marsh. According to the Commonwealth, she had been strangled and her neck had been slashed.

The Defendant has pleaded “Not Guilty” to the murder charge as well as two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and a single count of assault and battery. He has been held without bail since his arrest.

During the Massachusetts bail hearing, the prosecutor presented a timeline of the events alleged in the days before and after the alleged murder. Part of this timeline was the reading of text messages allegedly between the Defendant and the Deceased. The last of these are said to have taken place shortly before the Deceasd’s death.

According to the Commonwealth, the Deceased had made various telephone calls and sent text messages to the Defendant in an attempt to discuss their situation and, perhaps, salvage a friendship. The prosecutor revealed as follows:

She wanted to talk. They decided to meet after she finished work.

“Call me when you get out,” Fujita wrote.

Astley drove to his house. She parked near the fence so his mother wouldn’t see.
Then she texted him one word: “Here.”

It was the last message that she ever sent.

The Commonwealth sumarized, arguing that “In an act of friendship, [the Deceased] reached out to the defendant… The defendant reciprocated this act of friendship by killing her.”

The Defendant was ordered held without bail until a Septembrt 22 pretrial conference, when his defense attorney plans to push for his release on bail.

Yes, good luck with that!

Attorney Sam’s Take On Texting And Bail Hearings

There are a few issues that are worth reviewing in this case, although, clearly, the matter has but begun its trek through the criminal justice system.
Continue reading