(Cross-posted from The COFAR Blog)
Sheila Paquette has now traveled from her home in western Massachusetts to Falmouth District Court on Cape Cod three times to testify in an assault trial involving her brother that never seems to start.
Today (Tuesday) was the fourth scheduled trial date in the case against John Saunders, who is charged with assaulting Paquette’s brother, John Burns, an intellectually disabled group home resident, while they were on an outing on the Cape in June 2010. Saunders, a care worker at Burns’ residence in West Springfield, was subsequently fired from the job.
On Monday afternoon, after Paquette had made the three-hour, one-way journey to Falmouth from her home in Westfield for the sixth time, counting the pre-trial proceedings in the case, she learned there would be yet another postponement. The trial, which had first been scheduled for early January, was now being rescheduled until July 30. (The previously scheduled trial dates were January 9, March 27, June 4, and today, the 5th.)
“This has become a travesty,” Paquette said this morning as she was on her way back home after yet another fruitless trip to the Cape. “It’s gotten to the point where I don’t believe anything anybody is telling me about this case.”
Paquette said the victim advocate at Falmouth District Court gave her three different reasons for the latest postponement. One was that there was only one judge scheduled to be on duty today to handle all of the cases. The second was that the court was not able to round up a jury for today. And the third was that one witness for the prosecution and one for the defense indicated they would not be available to appear today.
“What is the excuse going to be next time?” Paquette said. “Is it possible this trial will never go forward? Will my brother ever receive justice as every other citizen does?”
Saunders is accused of hitting Burns in the face while toileting him during the June 2010 outing. Burns suffered two black eyes and other injuries in the alleged assault. Paquette, who is president of the Advocacy Network, a COFAR member organization, personally filed charges against Saunders in July 2010.
Saunders failed to show up at his first trial date this past January 9. He was reportedly arrested by police a couple of days after the January trial date and was released after posting bond that had been set by a judge at $1,000.
In late March, after a judge had postponed the trial for the second time, the reason given for the postponement was that a defense witness had failed to appear. At that time, Paquette was explicitly assured by the assistant district attorney prosecuting Saunders that the judge would not grant another postponement based on the failure of a witness to appear. (I know that’s the case because I heard the assistant D.A. say it to Paquette.)
Now, that assurance has gone out the window. Paquette is also left wondering why the postponements are so lengthy. “Why did they wait from January until March, and then from March until June, and now from June until the end of July to re-schedule this trial?” Paquette asked. “Why can’t they schedule it for the next court session each time?
We had those same questions for the District Court and the District Attorney’s Office. I spoke today to Ed Teague, the clerk magistrate for the Falmouth District Court, who said that while the court schedules jury trials on two days each week, it is not unusual for it to take a month or more to reschedule a trial.
Teague said, in fact, that several trials are often scheduled for the same day in the court, and that there are only enough jurors to hold one of those trials per day. Another trial was ongoing today, he said, and for some reason took precedence over the trial scheduled for Saunders. The same thing may well happen on July 30, he acknowledged.
Teague said I should ask Cape & Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe’s Falmouth Office for the specific reasons for the continual postponements of the Saunders case. However, when I called the D.A.’s office, I was told no one there would speak to me about it.
Can this family request the case be moved to a court that functions?
that the powers-that-be do not want this case to be heard? This is certainly discouraging to others who might want to pursue a case of neglect or abuse of their family member. Or is it simply systemic failure?
this case to go forward. The continual delays do work to the defendant’s advantage. Evenutally, the prosecution’s witnesses are unable to continue to make the sacrifice in time and money needed to show up at a proceeding that gets cancelled each time.
Ed Teague explained to me, in fact, that defendants often ask for jury trials, hoping the key witnesses won’t show the day of the trial and the prosecution won’t be able to proceed. If the witnesses do show and it looks like the trial really will go forward, many defendants then plead guilty at that point.
Our hope is that publicity about this case will put some pressure on this particular court to finally proceed with this trial. Unfortunately, no media outlets in the state have yet picked up on our press releases about this latest delay. We’re continuing to try to get The Cape Cod Times and The Springfield Republican, in particular, to cover this.
Has the Disabled Persons Protection Commission had any comment on this? Or, could the MA Office on Disability be contacted to see if they can intervene? Since they claim to support the rights of disabled people.
And, where are the self-proclaimed disability advocacy organizations in MA–The Arc and the Disability Law Center?
Why haven’t they stepped up to help?
Really good questions. Haven’t heard anything from them on this terrible case. For that matter, we haven’t heard anything from any of them regarding any of the incidents (including deaths) that have been recently reported by the media.
which concluded that there was reasonable cause to believe Saunders had used excessive force and had physically assaulted Burns. The DCCP also recommended that Saunders no longer be permitted to work wth DDS clients, and cited the group home for failing to identify Burns’ injuries before sending him to his day program the morning after the alleged assault.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees defendants the “Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial.” What about the rights of the victim and the victim’s family? Two years ago, John Burns, a mentally handicapped man, was assaulted and seriously injured. The person charged with that assault, John Saunders, was supposed to be the one caring for him.
The Advocacy Network Board of Directors last night heard a report from our President, Sheila Paquette, whose brother John Burns returned from a trip to Cape Cod—now a full two years ago—suffering injuries incurred while he was in the care of John Saunders, then an employee of The Center for Human Development, an agency contracted by the Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services.
John Saunders, appropriately, has been fired from that job. Sheila Paquette, her brother’s guardian, has taken the initiative to bring criminal charges against Saunders. In order to do so, she has dealt with a myriad of agencies in her quest for justice, including:
• the West Springfield Police Department
• the Falmouth Police Department
• the Massachusetts State Police
• the Center for Human Development
• the Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services
• the Massachusetts Disabled Persons Protection Commission
• the District Attorney of Cape Cod and the Islands
• Falmouth District Court.
Each time she has traveled across the state expecting a trial, there has been none. Why not? Each time some “reason” has been put forth. After four postponements, “reasons” take on the smell of “excuses.” The Board of Advocacy Network asks why is this case lingering without being heard? Is it because the guardian has taken steps beyond the DDS’s usual internal investigation? Is it because the defendant and his attorney hope the prosecution will get worn down and give up? Is it because the court is overburdened or inept at securing a trial? Is it because someone does not want this case to be heard? Is it because the victim cannot speak for himself? Along with COFAR, the members of Advocacy Network who are also parents and guardians of other vulnerable individuals, need answers. Sheila Paquette and John Saunders need justice. Why is it taking so long?
to ask who is getting the benefit of the trial delays beyond the obvious benefit to John Saunders, who has not been held accountable for his misconduct, and what benefit there would be from stalling and long delays, or the trial never occurring for some yet unknown teason.