January 10, 2005
Hi Everyone,
This Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 oral arguments will be held for Michael's appeal. All briefs have been written and now Michael's attorney and the District Attorney of Berkshire County will appear in Massachusetts Appellate Court for oral arguments. There are eight arguments Michael's attorney drafted which show the impropriety used in Michael's trial to wrongfully convict him. Here are the eight arguments followed by my comments:
- Argument #1: The evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant (Michael O’Laughlin) was the assailant, where it (the evidence) failed to establish his presence in the victim’s apartment. Comment: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts failed to prove (lack of evidence) that Michael was ever in the victim's apartment.
- Argument #2: Evidence that the defendant refused swabbing's violated his rights against self-incrimination and was reversible error. Comment: It is well-established that evidence of a defendant’s refusal to comply with a police request may not be used against him in court.
- Argument #3: Evidence that the defendant smoked cocaine and was looking for money to buy more cocaine was highly prejudicial and lacked probative value, where there was no evidence of theft from the victim. Comment: In order for prior bad acts to be sufficiently probative, they must connect with the facts of the case. Absent a connection to the facts, it has the effect of merely impugning his character (which was the intent of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts). The purpose of the prosecution’s evidence regarding Michael’s crack cocaine was to provide the jury with a motive. The prosecution stated that Michael entered the victim’s apartment to steal money to purchase cocaine. However, there were no facts presented that anything was taken from the victim’s apartment.
- Argument #4: The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a Daubert/Lanigan hearing on the reliability of DNA evidence, where the defendant established the unreliability of the testing process. Comment: Michael’s trial lawyer provided substantial, credible information that the Commonwealth’s testing procedures were unreliable, and that the possibility existed that victim’s and Michael’s DNA could be excluded from the weapon. This demonstration by Michael’s trial lawyer required the trial court to conduct a hearing on the reliability of the evidence. Daubert/Lanigan rulings require the judge to rule on any challenge to the validity of any process underlying a preferred opinion before the evidence reaches the jury. The trial judge did not fulfill his obligatory gatekeeper role, and as a result unreliable scientific evidence was sent to the jury without the required preliminary assessment mandated by Daubert/Lanigan.
- Argument #5: The trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the element of specific intent to kill created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. Comment: The jury instructions on the offense of armed assault with intent to murder failed to instruct the jury that they had to find the defendant had specific intent to kill the victim. There was the possibility that if instructed correctly, the jury might not have found that Michael had the specific intent to murder the victim, and they would not have found him guilty of this particular offense. Remember this—the Commonwealth stated Michael’s motive was to enter the victim’s apartment to steal money to purchase crack cocaine. When the victim woke up Michael was alleged to have beaten her. He did not have the specific intent to enter the victim’s apartment to murder her.
- Argument #6: The court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to introduce evidence of a note that demonstrated another suspect’s intent to murder. Comment: Michael’s trial lawyer offered to introduce a note found in the victim’s bedroom that the victim’s husband had the intent to murder. The judge’s exclusion of the note violated Michael’s constitutional right to present a defense under Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
- Argument #7: The trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss, where there was insufficient evidence to identify the defendant as the perpetrator, The Commonwealth presented refusal evidence, and the Commonwealth withheld exculpatory evidence. Comment: Before it may issue a valid indictment, the grand jury must hear sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the accused and probable cause to arrest him. The evidence presented by the Commonwealth failed to establish probable cause that Michael was the assailant. The Commonwealth presented no physical evidence to the grand jury which placed Michael in the victim’s apartment.
- Argument #8: The prosecution’s closing argument misstated the evidence leading to a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. Comment: During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued that “He [Michael] took that pillow and with his right hand pushed it down on top of her [the victim]. . .” There was no evidence that Michael touched the pillow. A prosecutor may not misstate the evidence or refer to facts not in evidence. Defense counsel’s failure to object was ineffective assistance of counsel, leading to a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Conclusion: For the reasons stated in Arguments one (1) and seven (7), this Honorable Court should reverse the convictions and enter judgment for the defendant. For the reasons stated in the remaining arguments, this Honorable Court should reverse the convictions and remand the matter for a new trial.
These are eight very strong arguments and represent the truth of what went wrong in Michael's trial.
It is expected that the Court will rule on Michael's appeal in the next 60-120 days. I ask that each of you remember Michael and his attorney in your prayers. Let's also pray that the court will rule based on the law and the truth.
In another positive development for Michael, Boston University's School of Journalism has decided to do a story on Michael's case. The school is assigning four students to work on this case. I'm hopeful that sometime in the spring Michael's story will be published in one of Boston's newspapers/magazine.
I want to thank you for your continued support and prayers for Michael. I'm confident the truth will prevail.
God bless you,
Dick
P.S. If these email messages and updates are not in harmony with your thinking at this time please let me know, and I'll remove your name from this list.
