Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog

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