No, I don’t particularly care to re-hash more Ben LaGuer stuff, but the Herald’s Dave Wedge does what should have been done by any number of media outlets weeks ago: Present the simple facts of the current status of LaGuer’s case:
The controversial case is headed for a December hearing before the state Supreme Judicial Court, which will decide whether to toss LaGuers conviction based on a fingerprint report that was withheld from his lawyers for 20 years.
The report, unearthed in 2001, shows that four fingerprints lifted from a phone in the victims room do not match LaGuer. The victim was bound with a phone cord.
Many academics and journalists who had taken up LaGuers cause withdrew support in 2002 after DNA tests called for by LaGuer linked him to the rape. But he insists the tests were flawed, a claim bolstered by reports from several DNA experts who claim the samples tested may have been mishandled and tainted.
Of course, none of that means that he’s innocent. But the question of whether he got a fair trial is most definitely in doubt. I’d love to hear some legal experts hold forth on his chances for a new trial. Wouldn’t that be enlightening?
Now, the Herald’s articles are so short, I guess it’s silly to complain that all this necessary information comes at the end of the article. Anyway, nicely done, Dave — let’s have more of just this kind of factual reporting to put the back-and-forth of the campaign in context.
“whether he got a fair trial is most definitely in doubt”
<
p>
No, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that: He did not get a fair trial. The doubt is about whether he’s guilty or not.
We’re getting a little close to meaningless semantic distinctions but I disagree. There is doubt.
<
p>
“Fair” is a word that lacks a real definition in this instance. Legally, however, a trail is not neccessarily considered “unfair” even if the defendant had less-than-perfect legal representation, evidentiary rulings, jury selection, instructions given to the jury, and/or even a racially-biased jury.
<
p>
It is the appelate court system that ultimately decides whether the trial under review was “fair.” Until such time as Laguer is given a new trial, there will remain doubt about whether his first trial was “fair.”
“Fair” is a word that lacks a real definition in this instance
<
p>
Nope. If the prosecution withheld evidence, it wasn’t a fair trial. And they did, so it wasn’t. Legally, you’re right, that hasn’t been determined yet. That doesn’t mean we don’t know it. And it’s certainly not meaningless.
In order for the trial to be considered not “fair”, the defendent needs to show more than just that the prosecution witheld evidence. The standard is whether the withheld evidence would have affected the outcome of the trial. This is a legal determination – one you wrongly suggest “hasn’t been determined yet.”
<
p>
Rather, in this case, several lower courts have ruled against Laguer’s motion for a new trial (which alleges the prosecution withheld exulpatory evidence – the fingerprint reports).
<
p>
Laguer brought this issue up for the first time in his eighth motion for a new trial filed in February 2004. The DA pointed out in response that MA case law has established the principle that The failure to produce evidence that is essentially cumulative of the Commonwealth’s evidence does not justify a new trial. (Commonwealth v. Lucien, 440 Mass. 658, 670 (2004)).”
<
p>
The Appeals Court examining Laguer’s latest claims, and ruling against him in November 2005, stated that “We conclude that even had the fingerprint report been timely produced, it would not have affected the outcome of the trial… we are confident that the defendant’s due process rights were not violated by the Commonwealth’s destruction or loss of the actual fingerprints or any remaining page of the fingerprint report. We are unpersuaded by the reasons set forth by the defendant in support of the relief requested in his motion.”
<
p>
In other words, the Appeals Court thought the trial was “fair” even though the prosecuter witheld evidence.
<
p>
This is still a lot of legally semantic wordplay here but I do think it is important to acknowledge that Laguer and his team of attorneys have yet to prove legally that he did not get a “fair trial.” If the prosecution withheld evidence, it may or may not have been a fair trial.
<
p>
In my considered view, there isn’t any logical or rational basis to conclude the Laguer trial wasn’t “fair” without a legal ruling to that effect.
I’ve known him for a number of years from being in bands and stuff. I kind of freaked on him about all the anti-deval stuff that the herald prints, and he said he was trying to write “just the facts”. looks like he really came through with that here. good to see. Dave’s a good man and a good journalist.
If someone could explain why Laguer waited 23 years to seek a new trial, I would really like to know. Also, if he gets a new trial, will he call the Poulittis (Spelling), the ones in the old Hank P-Ryan segment (view on this website) who said they were with him that night? His own (Leguirs) website doesn’t mention them. Sure as sh*t, I would have, even two decades ago. He should have represented himself then, if his lawyer wasn’t going to call them as witnesses. A real no brainer. Also, how did the police come to arrest him?
THis site claims tainted DNA, yet Deval couldn’t get away from Leguir fast enough when the evidence came back. So many questions.
A.Dog.