The Supreme Judicial Court has unanimously rejected Benjamin LaGuer’s latest round of arguments that he should receive a new trial.
You can read the opinion here. Bottom line:
Thus, given all of the circumstances in this case, including the fact that the defendant was aware at trial that the only fingerprint found on the telephone was not his, and the lack of any basis for assuming the other fingerprints would have identified a third party suspect, the defendant has not sustained his burden of showing that anything exculpatory has been withheld. Even were we to assume that the fingerprint report was exculpatory, we conclude that the defendant has not demonstrated that “a substantial basis exists for claiming prejudice from the nondisclosure.” Commonwealth v. Tucceri, 412 Mass. 401, 412 (1992). We have nothing more than speculation that the nondisclosed fingerprints might have been those of another culprit. This, together with the powerful evidence that connected the defendant to the crime, compels the conclusion that the missing evidence would not have influenced the jury….
He has not shown a reasonable possibility that the failure to disclose the fingerprint evidence “deprived him of evidence that would have been favorable to his case.”
This opinion, of course, does not take into account alleged problems with the DNA test, which have been discussed at length by Speaking Out and John Hosty.
Hopefully, the SJC decision represents legal closure for the victim and her family who have had to endure a protracted, messy, and highly publicized airing of Mr. LaGuer’s violent crimes over two decades of intense legal and political wrangling concerning this case.
<
p>
Ben LaGuer will undoubtedly continue to pursue his appeals in federal court and seek consideration from the Governor and the Parole Board/Advisory Board of Bardons for an early release from prison or a commutation or pardon.
<
p>
The recent DNA revelations confirming Mr. LaGuer’s participation in this brutal rape, and Governor Patrick’s most recent statement that he believes “justice has been served” in the LaGuer case hopefully will foreclose the possibility Mr. LaGuer will be successful in appealing for relief from the Governor. My prayers and thoughts remain with the victim and her family as they continue to grapple with the long-term emotional and physical consequences of Mr. LaGuer’s brutality.
The Justice system doesn’t exist for the families of victims, it exists for the people who may or may not have committed the crimes. Everyone has the rights to use the system to try to clear their names, especially given the facts of the LaGuer case. It seems to me that there is one more reasonable go LaGuer could make in court, over whether or not his DNA evidence is valid given the sorry state of affairs at our State Crime Lab – and that’s a truly just cause, because what went down there was inexcusable to the nth degree. Coming down on people, saying they shouldn’t be allowed to appeal, is anathema to justice – regardless of your rationale, including appealing to the Nancy Grace crowd. My first cousin was shot in the head twice at the age of 19, yet you don’t see me complaining about whether or not her murderer got any appeals.
I thought the justice system existed for all of us — perpetrators, victims, and the millions who aren’t in either category but some day could be.
<
p>
I don’t know from nuthin’ on this case, just sayin…
But you’re just playing the semantics game. Either way, there’s room for people to maintain and persue their innocence – which is an important and fundamental right given to all people within this country. Anyone could be at the wrong place at the wrong time, thus necessitating the way our system works.
That victims have no rights. That the justice system is just for the accused?
All the legal and constitutional rights given to a person. For example, a victim has the right to file criminal charges. Furthermore, a victim has the right to testify against whoever allegedly committed a crime against them – if they so choose. Indeed, a victim could probably even go to a parol hearing if whoever was convicted of that crime against them was up for parole.
<
p>
However, a victim is neither the judge nor jury. That’s not justice. Once someone is accused of a crime, they’re given a lot of means to declare and protect their innocence. That was my point – let’s not put words into my mouth or twist anything I have to say. ok?
Read your original comment with a neutral eye, and you’ll see that my response was justified. That is exactly what it sounded like to me.
…what the court is telling you is that at some point the judicial process has to come to an end. Schluss. Zu Ende. Fini. Done. And that they won’t re-open the case unless there is virtually incontrovertable evidence that the jury’s decision was incorrect.
<
p>
Do I approve of that? No. The Amiraults were run through the wringer by over-zealous prosecutors and (as far as I’m concerned) lying “psychologists”, but notwithstanding the fact that there was more than a bit of evidence that the tactics used by the “psychologists” to obtain “evidence,” and notwithstanding the fact that most of the day-care cases in other states had been overturned, the SJC refused to do that here.
<
p>
Why? The only reason I can think of is: Schluss. Zu Ende. Fini. Done.
<
p>
Understand something and understand it well. Courts aren’t primarily interested in doing justice. Their primary interest is in getting cases off of their dockets. Usually, they do a pretty good job of doing justice. But that’s not their primary interest.
<
p>
I noticed that twenty years ago.
my response is in this post that I just put up.
If the guy had jurors who were prejudice, which was porven, and the state hid or lost key evidence, why can’t we assume there other issues and revisit the facts. I new trial would do just that. The SJC says we don’t have to bother, yet all I have read only makes me want to hear more. Inform yourselves and decide what you think, but I for one suspect that we screwed up and have the wrong man in prison….for 23 years.