The state Appeals Court has rejected Benjamin LaGuer’s latest bid for a new trial.
Mr. LaGuer, serving
a life sentence at Shirley State Prison for the brutal rape and beating of his former neighbor at a Leominster apartment complex
in 1983, has maintained his innocence since his arrest.
His latest bid for a new trial centered on a potentially exculpatory
fingerprint report that was not shared with defense counsel until 2001, almost 18 years after the trial.
That fingerprint
report said four fingerprints taken from a telephone at the crime scene did not match Mr. LaGuer. The cord from the phone
had been used to bind the then 59-year-old woman during the assault.
Police said at Mr. LaGuer’s trial that only
one partial fingerprint was collected from the scene and it could not be identified. The fingerprint report discovered in
2001 was incomplete and did not contain the fingerprints themselves. That information is believed lost or destroyed.
Mr.
LaGuer’s lawyer, James C. Rehnquist of Boston, argued before the Appeals Court in November that Superior Court Judge
Timothy S. Hillman erred when he said the newly discovered fingerprint report would not have swayed a jury.
Judge Hillman,
who has since been sworn in as a magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court, said jurors in 1984 relied on the victim’s
testimony and identification of Mr. LaGuer as her attacker. Absent evidence the four fingerprints were definitely those of
the woman’s assailant, he wrote, the fingerprints did not have much value.
Mr. Rehnquist argued before the Appeals
Court that jurors were not swayed by a partial fingerprint, but may have considered four complete fingerprints that did not
match his client.
In a ruling issued this morning, the Appeals Court affirmed Judge Hillman’s ruling and his
subsequent reconsideration.
“The fingerprint report does not contain information that would have cast doubt on
the victim’s positive identification of the defendant, or cleared him from involvement with this attack,” the
ruling states. “For the same reasons, 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.”
The
fingerprint report was discovered while the court was awaiting DNA analysis of evidence from the case. The results, published
in 2002, further implicated Mr. LaGuer, who has since tried to discredit them.
Mr. Rehnquist said in November that
the validity of the DNA results would be challenged at the new trial he was hoping his client would receive.
1/5/05: Judge Timothy Hillman denied the Motion to Reconsider
with one word written in the margin of attorney Rehnquist's brief. He didn't even wait until a deadline set by Judge Francis
Fecteau for District Attorney John Conte to respond to the arguments advanced. (Click for link to the motion and the accompanying memorandum of law.)
click for link
Judge Hillman denied the Motion to Reconsider with the stroke of a pen.
POSTED: Friday, January 7, 2005
LaGuer denied new trial
By Matthew Bruun Telegram &
Gazette Staff
WORCESTER— Superior Court Judge Timothy S. Hillman has again denied Benjamin
LaGuer’s request for a new trial for a 1983 rape he says he did not commit.
Mr. LaGuer vowed to appeal the ruling,
even as he continues his effort to have Judge Hillman thrown off the case because he once provided legal counsel to the rape
victim’s family.
“This is not over by a long shot,” Mr. LaGuer said yesterday from Norfolk State
Prison, where he is serving a life sentence in connection with his 1984 conviction on aggravated rape and other charges.
The
charges stemmed from a brutal assault at a Leominster apartment complex on July 13, 1983. Mr. LaGuer lived next door to the
victim, who identified him in court as her attacker. Mr. LaGuer has claimed he was the victim of mistaken identity. The victim,
59 at the time of the assault, died in 1999 at the age of 75.
Judge Hillman presided over a series of hearings on
Mr. LaGuer’s request to have evidence from the crime scene subjected to DNA analysis. Those results, published in March
2002, further incriminated him. Mr. LaGuer has since said the analyzed evidence was contaminated and the results cannot be
trusted, and has amassed a number of DNA experts to bolster his contention.
Prosecutors have stood by Mr. LaGuer’s
conviction since the jury’s verdict in January 1984. Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte said the DNA results
proved Mr. LaGuer’s guilt beyond a mathematical certainty. Members of the victim’s family have also stood firm
on Mr. LaGuer’s guilt.
Mr. LaGuer now argues that a jury at a new trial should weigh evidence that has emerged
since his conviction.
His latest bid centers on a potentially exculpatory fingerprint report that was never shared
with the defense until 18 years after the trial. The Leominster police detective who investigated the case testified in 1984
that no complete fingerprints were recovered from the crime scene.
In November 2001, however, prosecutors found a
fingerprint report from July 1983 that showed four complete fingerprints had been collected from the base of a telephone in
the victim’s apartment. The victim’s hands had been bound with the telephone’s cord.
None of the
fingerprints matched Mr. LaGuer’s, according to a State Police report. The trooper who analyzed the fingerprints informed
the Leominster detective of the results, according to the sections of the report unearthed in 2001, but the complete report
and the fingerprints themselves have not been found.
The lead Leominster police detective on the case has also died
since the trial.
Judge Hillman ruled in September that the fingerprint report did not entitle Mr. LaGuer to a new
trial.
“This court concludes that the fingerprint report is not material because the presence of four fingerprints
on the base of the phone has little probative value toward proving that someone else was the rapist,” Judge Hillman
wrote. “Absent evidence as to when the four fingerprints were deposited, the newly discovered fingerprint report does
not carry a measure of strength in support of the defendant’s position.”
Defense lawyer James C. Rehnquist
disagreed in his motion to reconsider the ruling last month.
“Given the lack of any physical evidence presented
at trial linking Mr. LaGuer to the crime scene, this evidence — showing that someone other than Mr. LaGuer had handled
an instrument used to commit the crime — clearly ‘might have affected the outcome of the trial’ or might
have been a ‘real factor in the jury’s deliberations,’ ” Mr. Rehnquist wrote.
Judge Hillman
had given prosecutors until Jan. 28 to respond to Mr. Rehnquist’s motion, but his denial of Mr. LaGuer’s latest
bid was filed Wednesday before any filing from Mr. Conte’s office.
Mr. Conte was not available for comment on
the case yesterday afternoon.
“I’m saddened, but I’m not discouraged because we’ve still got
the appeals court,” Mr. LaGuer said yesterday. “I’m sure at the end of the day I will be vindicated and
a new trial will be held.”
Mr. LaGuer said he had also received a letter this week from the state Commission
on Judicial Conduct stating that board would investigate his complaint against Judge Hillman. Mr. LaGuer argued that Judge
Hillman should have withdrawn from the case because he provided legal counsel to the rape victim’s family. The legal
counsel was given several years before the rape.
Prosecutors raised the issue of Judge Hillman’s connections
to the victim’s family during a DNA hearing in 2000. At that time, the judge said he felt comfortable hearing the case,
and neither the prosecutors nor Mr. LaGuer’s defense lawyer objected. Mr. LaGuer has since switched lawyers.
Mr.
LaGuer also filed a complaint against Judge Hillman with the state Ethics Commission. Spokesmen for both agencies have said
they could neither confirm nor deny any investigations.
Judge Hillman ruled in September that the fingerprint report
did not entitle Mr. LaGuer to a new trial.
Telegram & Gazette Monday, December 20, 2004 Rapist pleads with judge
By Matthew Bruun
LEOMINSTER— Benjamin LaGuer, still fighting his 1984 conviction on
aggravated rape and other charges, is asking a Superior Court judge to reconsider his ruling that he is not entitled to a
new trial.
Judge Timothy S. Hillman denied Mr. LaGuer’s latest bid for a new trial in September, arguing that
a potentially exculpatory fingerprint report uncovered almost 20 years after his conviction would not have swayed a jury.
The judge’s ruling also cited the DNA analysis in 2002 that implicated Mr. LaGuer in the rape and assault of
his former neighbor in Leominster in July 1983.
In a memorandum supporting Mr. LaGuer’s recent motion for a
reconsideration of the ruling, defense lawyer James C. Rehnquist suggested the court underestimated the significance of the
fingerprint report, which was withheld from the defense for 18 years after the crime.
“Given the lack of any
physical evidence presented at trial linking Mr. LaGuer to the crime scene, this evidence — showing that someone other
than Mr. LaGuer had handled an instrument used to commit the crime — clearly ‘might have affected the outcome
of the trial’ or might have been a ‘real factor in the jury’s deliberations,’ ” Mr. Rehnquist
wrote, quoting phrases from Judge Hillman’s ruling.
Mr. LaGuer, now 41, has steadfastly maintained his innocence
since his arrest on July 15, 1983. The victim identified Mr. LaGuer in court as her attacker. He was convicted of aggravated
rape and other charges in 1984 and sentenced to life in prison.
The Parole Board has twice denied Mr. LaGuer an early
release from prison, citing his refusal to take responsibility for the crime and his lack of sex-offender counseling.
Starting
in 2000, Judge Hillman presided over a series of hearings on Mr. LaGuer’s efforts to have evidence from the case subjected
to DNA analysis. The results, presented in March 2002, further implicated him.
Mr. LaGuer has since sought to discredit
the results, suggesting the evidence was contaminated. He notes that the analyst who handled the evidence in 1983 acknowledged
working on multiple cases at once. Mr. LaGuer has contacted several DNA experts who have said contamination could be responsible
for the minimal amount of genetic material recovered during the DNA analysis.
In interviews from Norfolk State Prison,
Mr. LaGuer has said a jury should weigh the issues at a new trial, where the evidence’s convoluted chain of custody
and the potentially exculpatory fingerprint report could also be evaluated.
Mr. LaGuer’s critics have characterized
him as a media-savvy manipulator. Prosecutors challenging Mr. LaGuer’s latest efforts for a new trial said he forfeited
his right to seek relief from the court when he contaminated a court-ordered saliva sample while awaiting trial in 1983.
“Defendant’s
admitted misconduct in this case is of sufficient gravity that this court should not permit any further attacks on his convictions,”
prosecutors wrote in a court filing in May. “In short: You can’t cheat at the game and then claim it wasn’t
fair.”
In the aftermath of Judge Hillman’s ruling denying the new trial, Mr. LaGuer filed complaints with
the state Ethics Commission and Commission on Judicial Conduct, seeking to have Judge Hillman removed from the case because
he had provided legal advice to the victim’s family.
The fingerprint report was unearthed in November 2001,
as the court awaited the DNA analysis.
In denying Mr. LaGuer’s bid for a new trial, Judge Hillman suggested
the fingerprint evidence would not have swayed a jury. “This court concludes that the fingerprint report is not material
because the presence of four fingerprints on the base of the phone has little probative value toward proving that someone
else was the rapist.”
Mr. Rehnquist disagreed.
“The fingerprint evidence suppressed by the prosecution
was the only physical evidence recovered from an instrumentality of the crime. To remove the cord from the phone’s base,
it is almost certain that the assailant manually grasped the base of the telephone. And recovered from the base of that very
telephone were four fingerprints — conclusively found by the commonwealth not to be those of Mr. LaGuer.”
Mr.
Rehnquist goes on to argue that there is a rational — if not conclusive — link between the fingerprints and the
rape. “Evidence suggests the perpetrator physically handled the telephone at some point during the assault. The fingerprints
recovered from that telephone provide some of the strongest and most reliable evidence as to who touched the telephone during
the crime.”
Mr. LaGuer and his supporters say another man, named in court documents, had access to the apartment
building and may have committed the crime.
Worcester
Telegram & Gazette 11/29/04
LaGuer sees Hillman bias
By Matthew Bruun
LEOMINSTER - Benjamin LaGuer, who has maintained
his innocence of aggravated rape and assault charges since his arrest 21 years ago, is fighting to have the judge who rejected
his latest bid for a new trial thrown off the case. Mr. LaGuer said he has filed complaints with the state Ethics Commission
and the Commission on Judicial Conduct against Judge Timothy S. Hillman, who once provided probate advice to the victim's
family when he was a lawyer in private practice.
"If Judge Hillman could not qualify to
be a juror on this case with his conflict of interest, how did he get to preside as the judge?" Mr. LaGuer asked in a prepared
statement.
Mr. LaGuer, now 41, was sentenced in 1984
to 15 years to life in prison in connection with the July 12, 1983 assault on his former neighbor at a Leominster apartment
complex. The victim, then 59, identified Mr. LaGuer in court as her attacker. She died in 1999 at the age of 75.
Judge Hillman presided over a series of
hearings on Mr. LaGuer's request to have evidence from the crime scene subjected to DNA analysis. The technology was not available
at his original trial in 1984, and Mr. LaGuer had said the analysis would prove his ceaseless claims of innocence.
The results of the DNA analysis released
in March 2002 further implicated Mr. LaGuer. He has since said the genetic material analyzed in California was contaminated,
a theory dismissed by the scientist who conducted the initial analysis.
Mr. LaGuer, who has amassed high-profile
supporters during his sentence, has lined up several DNA experts who said such contamination would have been possible.
At the first DNA hearing in 2000, Assistant
District Attorney Joseph J. Reilly III noted that the victim's daughter had consulted Judge Hillman after her father's death.
The contact occurred several years before the rape.
"We are not asking that the court recuse
itself but would like to make a record of whatever contact the court can recall having and if the court feels that it is able
to be impartial in this matter," Mr. Reilly said, according to a transcript of the hearing.
Judge Hillman said he recalled the victim's
daughter, and noted her brother was a high school classmate of his. He also said he did not remember the phone call about
her father's estate but did recognize her face.
"I don't see that I have any difficulty
in deciding this case fairly and impartially," Judge Hillman said. He then asked defense lawyer David Siegel if he had a problem
with his hearing the case.
"No, we don't believe that that would even
raise a question concerning either actual appearance or perceived appearance of anything less than impartiality, and that
doesn't raise any concern, your honor," Mr. Siegel said, according to the transcript.
Mr. LaGuer found new legal representation
after the DNA results were returned in March 2002. He is now represented by James C. Rehnquist, son of U.S. Supreme Court
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
Mr. Siegel had no comment on the conflict
of interest issue when contacted last week. Mr. Rehnquist could not be immediately reached for comment.
Mr. LaGuer's latest bid for a new trial
centers on the discovery in late 2001 of four sets of fingerprints from a telephone in the victim's apartment.
The victim was bound by the telephone cord
during the assault.
None of the prints collected matched Mr.
LaGuer, a state trooper reported to Leominster police in July 1983.
The detective who investigated the case,
himself now deceased, testified that no complete fingerprints had been collected at the scene.
Judge Hillman ruled in September that Mr.
LaGuer was not entitled to a new trial.
"This court concludes that the fingerprint
report is not material because the presence of four fingerprints on the base of the phone has little probative value toward
proving that someone else was the rapist," the judge wrote.
"Further, the evidence against the defendant
was strong, including the victim's consistent identification of him, made after an opportunity to observe the assailant during
an attack that lasted several hours in an adequately illuminated room," Judge Hillman continued.
A Worcester judge who refused to grant
a new trial in a high-profile rape case based on newly uncovered fingerprint evidence once served as attorney for the victim's
family, the Herald has learned.
Superior Court Judge Timothy S. Hillman ruled the 59-year-old victim's consistent identification of her Leominister
neighbor Benjamin LaGuer as her rapist far outweighed LaGuer's argument that police withheld key fingerprints two decades
ago.
LaGuer's backers complained in October to the State Ethics Commission and the Judicial Conduct Commission that
Hillman should have recused himself. Neither commission would confirm nor deny that they have received complaints. LaGuer's
former lawyer, David Siegel, never asked the judge to give up the case.
Convicted in 1984 and serving a life sentence, LaGuer, 41, still maintains he is innocent despite DNA testing funded
by his defense that linked him to the crime in 2002. His attorneys contend the testing was contaminated by improper handling
of underwear seized from LaGuer's apartment.
The Worcester district attorney's office was the first to raise the question of the judge's impartiality during
a March 2000 hearing but did not seek his recusal, according to a transcript.
The judge acknowledged he advised the victim's daughter about her father's estate after his death but had little
memory of the work.
``I don't see that I have any difficulty in deciding this case fairly and impartially,'' Hillman said at the hearing.
Siegel agreed.
LaGuer's new attorney, James Rehnquist, the son of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, argues police
withheld four fingerprints found on a telephone in the victim's home. The phone cord was used to bind her hands.
2/15/04
Conte rejects LaGuer claim DNA expert
says he's owed $7,000 By Matthew Bruun
WORCESTER- Benjamin LaGuer's latest
bid for freedom centers on a piece of evidence that was withheld from his defense lawyers for almost 20 years.
The
potentially exculpatory fingerprint report - discovered 18 years after the trial that ended with a conviction for aggravated
rape and a life sentence for Mr. LaGuer - emerged amid a lengthy court battle for DNA testing of the evidence. (Read full story)
2/12/04
LaGuer renews his attempt to
overturn rape conviction
By Matthew Bruun
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Almost two years after DNA testing
linked him to an aggravated rape he has denied committing for two decades, Benjamin LaGuer is asking the court to throw out
the conviction. (Click here to read the article)
2/11/04
Rapist to seek
new trial over DNA test results By J.M. Lawrence
Boston
Herald
Attorneys
for convicted rapist Ben LaGuer, whose fight for DNA testing wound up directly linking him to the crime, plan to file a motion
in Worcester today for a new trial. (Click here to read the article)
