Our system of justice depends heavily on the notion that those who
appear before the courts tell the truth. We take even the bending of the truth very seriously (think William Jefferson
Clinton and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby) because judges and juries depend on accurate information in order to reach valid
decisions that inspire public confidence.
The case against Benjamin LaGuer has been riddled with police and
prosecutorial irregularities from the beginning when a critical fingerprint report disappeared. It took 18 years
for prosecutors to release that report.
To those who are watching it is hardly surprising that Sandra Hautanen of the Worcester
District Attorney's office continued a pattern of misstating the factual record in recent arguments before the Massachusetts
Appeals Court.
Anyone who cares about our rights as Americans under the constitution should be offended
and even angry about these tactics.
Listen to the arguments, including responses to questions from the panel, made by Sandra Hautanen, a prosecutor in the Worcester District Attorney's office. The entire exchange is about 21 minutes long.
"From what we’ve
been able to piece together after we voluntarily agreed to go
along and go out and look at everything - it wasn’t just because of the public records request - we really didn’t
think there was anything else out there."
THE FACTS: There was nothing at all voluntary about the Commonwealth's responses to public records requests. In truth
Ms. Hautanen herself in a June 28, 2001 letter to attorney Tamara Fisher, then of McDermott, Will & Emery, stated:
"any formal request for records from the Commonwealth should be made by filing a motion." It took from June until November
for one page of a fingerprint report to be released.The Worcester district attorney is still resisting requests
to see the trial file.
"There’s another lab as you probably all know at 1010 Comm Ave, it used to be, where they did the general scientific
testing. It was to that lab that the other evidence was taken. Bloody sheets, bloody pillowcases… lots of bloody evidence
including a tissue that was found later to have Type B blood in it, which is the defendant’s type."
THE FACTS: That Ms. Hautanen told the court that Type B blood named in the serology report links LaGuer to the crime
is absolutely outrageous. The serology report lists seven items with blood and for all of but one of them it states
that attempts to derive a blood type were unsuccessful. In August 2001 a DNA analysis on the one bit of blood for which a
blood type was supposedly determined (Type 'B') showed that it belonged to the victim, who had Type 'O' blood. This
means several things: 1) The serology report was wrong on a fundamental fact, a very serious issue in itself. 2) This wrong
information was used to supposedly "link" LaGuer to the crime during previous court hearings and was cited by the Appeals
Court in a two to one 1994 decision denying LaGuer a new trial. 3) Prosecutors cited this erroneous serology report at the
June 2003 parole hearing even after they knew it was wrong. 4) Hautanen cited it again in her arguments even though she knows
- or should know - that it was wrong.
"There was a small partial print and if attorney Ettenberg had
wanted to try to match it to someone, and he did have a named person he kept referencing."
THE FACTS: LaGuer's attorney at his January 1984 trial, Peter Ettenberg, would have had no way to compare the partial
fingerprint to anybody. No known report was ever generated regarding that partial fingerprint, nor was any record of the print
itself shared with the defense.
MISREPRESENTATION #4
"If I may, though, and he did put a plastic bag over her head, I don’t know if there may have been fingerprints
on that, to try to suffocate her."
THE FACTS: There were at least three items in the apartment other than the telephone that could be expected to bear the
perpetrator's fingerprints:
1) The plastic bag the assailant at one point put over the victim's head. Inexplicably there is no record of the
detective retrieving the bag or submitting it for analysis. The perpetrator would have had to touch it to put it over the
victim's head
2) A knife the victim reported that the perpetrator had and which Lt. Robert Hebert noted in his
report and his trial testimony. Inexplicably there is no record of the knife in the evidence collected from the crime scene.
The knife is of special significance because there were indications that the victim's door had been jimmied.
3) A Pepsi can that, according to a police report by Det. Carignan, was found to have a partial fingerprint on it. Inexplicably
neither this can nor any record of the fingerprint found on it were submitted into evidence.
"This is a woman who had seen the defendant when he buzzed her apartment
looking down the hall expecting her daughter in a senior and elderly housing complex, a young Hispanic black male opening
the door when she buzzed. She got scared, she closed the door. She saw him, she testified I saw his face, I know what he looked
like. She told detective Carignan she had seen him coming in and out of the door next door to hers."
THE FACTS: Even though Detective Carignan asserted that the victim had named LaGuer as her assailant
and had identified her attacker as her next door neighbor there is no record that she actually said this. In fact, Carignan's
assertions are directly contradicted by the victim's testimony at trial.
"There
were bright amber security lights all over the place. One tenant testified who lived in the back that he could play golf outside
at night without any problem the lights were so bright. Another tenant testified that he could walk around in his apartment
at night without any lights on because the lights were so bright."
THE FACTS: No tenants of the building other than LaGuer and the victim testified at trial. Furthermore, having set his
sights on LaGuer, Det. Carignan never even questioned any other tenants. Hautanen's remarks refer to cherry picked testimony
from building personnel that is contradicted in other parts of the transcripts.
MISREPRESENTATION #7
"You have to take in light all the evidence including the fact that
he had scratches on his back that he lied about. First he said he’d gotten them from scratches on a bar, then he said
it was on a picnic table. Those went from the middle
of his back to his shoulder consistent with somebody trying to fight her way away from him"
THE FACTS: Hautanen asserts that LaGuer
lied about scratches on his back. But there were in fact no inconsistencies in LaGuer's account. At trial the
victim denied scratching the assailant (transcript page 185:10-12). LaGuer testified that he scratched himself on a bench after swimming in Lake Shirley with a friend who he named (transcript
page 508:1-12). Nothing in the record contradicts LaGuer’s account other than Carignan’s recollection
(he did not include this supposedly important detail in his police report) that LaGuer had told him that he scratched
himself on a nail in an unnamed bar (transcript page 357:6-11; 404:18 – 405:8).
MISREPRESENTATION #8
Asked whether the victim even testified
that she scratched the assailant Ms. Hautanen replied: "She wasn't sure, that was her testimony."
