October 21, 2004
Hi Everyone,
I hope all of you are well. For all you New Englanders, that are fans of the Boston Red Sox, I hope you are well rested (and happy) after that dramatic victory over the New York Yankees last night. I spoke with Michael yesterday, after Curt Schilling's victory in game 6, and he was all excited about the possibility that the Red Sox just might beat the Yankees in game 7 after many years of frustration. He got his wish, and I'm sure he's very happy. He's a huge fan of the Red Sox and the New England Patriots.
Recently I've had the chance to read the Commonwealth of Massachusetts brief to the appellate court as well as the reply brief (written by Michael's lawyer) in response to the Commonwealth's brief. I will be sending out a more detailed description of these briefs at a later date, but want to get something out to you now to keep you informed of what is going on with Michael's appeal.
It was interesting reading to say the least. The Commonwealth presented their version of the case and it sounded very convincing. However, anyone familiar with Michael's case could see the discrepancies the Commonwealth was putting forward. There were three things I noticed about the Commonwealth's brief:
1. They took many things out of context. This is to be expected as they wanted to put their best foot forward and present the case as they want the appellate court to see it.
2. They made reference to things that were not in the trial transcripts. When compiling a brief to be presented to the appellate court it is required to quote directly from the trial transcripts. What the court is looking for is any technicalities or wrong doings during the trial that might have prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial and a just verdict.
3. One of the things lawyers do to support their arguments is to reference previous case rulings. The Commonwealth used a case to support the jury instructions given to a particular charge was proper when in fact they were in error regarding the particular jury instruction. The Commonwealth used a case that applied to the charge of "assault with intent to murder/assult with intent to kill", when in fact the actual charge was "armed assault with intent to murder."
Fortunately Michael's lawyer in his Reply Brief (response to the Commonwealth's brief) put everything in perspective. Using facts, quotes from the trial transcripts, and referring to correct cases he clearly pointed out the discrepancies within the Commonwealth's Brief. Once again Michael's lawyer did an outstanding job of putting together Michael's brief, showing he has a good grasp and understanding of Michael's case, and ensuring the Commonwealth stay within the facts of this case.
One thing of importance in this appeal is that many defendants, when going through their appeal process, are lucky if they get one good argument to support their claim that they did not receive a fair trial and were wrongfully convicted. In Michael's case there were eight sound arguments--two of which the court should reverse the convictions and enter judgment for Michael, and six of which the court should reverse the convictions and remand the matter for a new trial for Michael.
The next step in Michael's appeal process is for oral arguments to the Massachusetts Appellate Court. During this process Michael's lawyer and the Commonwealth have fifteen minutes to argue their case in front of the court. It is expected that this will occur in the March/April timeframe of 2005.
There's still is much to do. I ask all of you for your continued support and prayers. This is a long process and one that we all pray will turn out correctly for Michael.
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.
