GUILTY MA - Colleen Ritzer, 24, brutally murdered, Danvers, 22 Oct 2013 #2

[jacct]

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 1m1 minute ago
#PhilipChism just came into the courtroom. Yesterday, he waived his appearance, so this is surprising. Must've changed his mind.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 49s50 seconds ago
We're waiting for the start of the "charge conference" in the #PhilipChism trial this morning.

 

[jacct]

Bob Ward Fox25Verified account ‏@Bward3 55s56 seconds ago Judge Lowy is now back on the bench in the #PhilipChism trial

Bob Ward Fox25Verified account ‏@Bward3 55s56 seconds ago
Judge Lowy is now back on the bench in the #PhilipChism trial

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 1m1 minute ago
Besides charge conference lawyers will argue on required findings and on issue of brain scans

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 1m1 minute ago
Regan still wants jury to see #PhilipChism brain scans showing smaller volume in areas of his brain.

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet 55s56 seconds ago
First, lawyers for #PhilipChism want Judge David Lowy to admit testimony about the teen's brain scans that jurors never heard.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 48s49 seconds ago
Lowy: "The problem with Dr. Gur is I don't believe him."

No livestream yet

 

[jacct]

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 1m1 minute ago Regan: prosecution has made scans relevant. They bring up the testing showing he's malingering, but scans are an explanation

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 1m1 minute ago
Regan: the information is relevant because it explains the prosecution's experts findings on #PhilipChism tests.

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet 1m1 minute ago
Denise Regan says reduced brain volume in #PhilipChism "provides an alternative explanation" for state's claim he's faking madness.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 1m1 minute ago
DA opposes the use of scans, says defense will misuse it to claim #PhilipChism schizophrenic.

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet 32s32 seconds ago
Lowy tells Regan of #PhilipChism witness psychologist Ruben Gur, " I don't believe him. I just don't believe him."

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 38s38 seconds ago
Judge says if he allowed brain scans, it would only be to rebut malingering, not to say that #PhilipChism has schizophrenia.

 

[jacct]

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 52s52 seconds ago
ADA also says prejudice will outweigh the probative (helpfulness to jurors) value if scans admitted.

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 1m1 minute ago
Judge: I have to dive into this. This is a serious issue.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 57s57 seconds ago
ADA also says the defense experts were only disclosed on 11/18, (3 days into #PhilipChism trial.)

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 1m1 minute ago
ADA: some of the same differences in #PhilipChism brain, defense calls schizophrenia, also indicate simple antisocial personality disorder.

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 1m1 minute ago
Judge will have to decide if Dr Satterthwaite can testify, if the prosecution got enough notice, and if the scans are relevant

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 2m2 minutes ago
Lowy: "We're dealing with a whole new area ... As to how to deal with raw data."


Tweets are very slow this morning.

 

[jacct]

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 34s34 seconds ago
Judge: "This issue is an issue I would have like to have had a two day hearing on and really dug into it."

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 1m1 minute ago
DA: "With all due respect," points to Regan + Osler, "they're counsel for (Scott) Hanright," the case that set new precedent.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 1m1 minute ago
Hanright was an associate of Dominic Cinelli, who killed Woburn police officer in a shootout. He eventually plead out in case

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 1m1 minute ago
Judge says if there's a 1st degree murder conviction, with 14yo def, this issue may be noted on appeal.

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet 2m2 minutes ago
Lowy feared jurors would misinterpret the inference as medical proof

 

[jacct]

OK, I did a quick lookup for Scott Hanright and found the appeals court ruling. I haven't read it yet but it sounds interesting.

A Superior Court judge erred in granting the criminal defendant's motion to dismiss indictments charging the defendant with assault and battery with a deadly weapon against a person sixty years or older, assault and battery on a public employee, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, and discharge of a firearm within 500 feet of a building (offenses allegedly committed by the defendant's joint venturer outside a department store as the joint venturer attempted to flee the scene of an armed robbery), and to dismiss so much of an indictment charging murder in the first degree (also allegedly committed by the joint venturer) as included any theory of murder other than felony-murder, where the defendant could be liable for the offenses committed by the joint venturer if the Commonwealth proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant participated in, and intended, such crimes [307-310]; and where sufficient evidence was presented to the grand jury to support a finding that the defendant intentionally participated as a joint venturer in the assault and battery crimes on a person sixty years or older, the assault crimes by means of a dangerous weapon, and the discharge of a firearm within 500 feet of a building [310-313], as well as sufficient evidence of the defendant's participation and intent as a joint venturer to support the indictment charging murder on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty [313-314].

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/466/466mass303.html

 

[AnaTeresa]

Regarding the issue of late disclosure, I have found some case law for Massachusetts just googling the issue. From Commonwealth v. Trapp (1996), where the prosecution disclosed two rebuttal witnesses on the day of jury empanelment:

Here defense counsel had at least six days to prepare to cross-examine the two rebuttal witnesses. Indeed for three of those days court was not in session, for the Columbus Day holiday weekend began the day after jury empanelment. "[T]he prosecution's disclosure was sufficiently timely to allow the defendant 'to make effective use of the evidence in preparing and presenting his case.'" Baldwin, supra at 175. There is no evidence of bad faith in the late disclosure. See Commonwealth v. Donovan, 395 Mass. 20 , 24 (1985). The defense provided the relevant test results only one month before trial, and the record indicates that the prosecution found the rebuttal witnesses approximately at the time trial began. See Commonwealth v. Costello, 392 Mass. 393 , 400 (1984) (prosecution had "an apparently blameless role in the delay"). The judge was well within his discretion in determining that the defendant was not unduly surprised, and that in any event ample time existed to allow defense preparation.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/423/423mass356.html

So the three factors which come into play for Lowy's decision will be:
1) Whether the counsel who had the late disclosure acted in good faith;
2) Whether the opposing counsel was unduly surprised; and
3) Whether the opposing counsel had adequate time to prepare.

Precedent in Massachusetts appears to be fairly open to late disclosures, so I think the main focus here will be the lack of good faith and the fact that a lot of these things came out of left field. I am not sure which way he will go. From the tweets alone, it seems like defense hasn't been acting in good faith, but without hard evidence of that, it's hard to say.

 

[jacct]

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 2m2 minutes ago
ADA says the consensus is that scans not used in diagnosis of schizophrenia. Says defense wants to find new way to get scans in

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 2m2 minutes ago
ADA calls it "fundamentally unfair" to prosecution to force them to prepare for another hearing on scans on eve of closings.

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 27s27 seconds ago
We're moving on w/o a decision to the required findings. Judge is noting that attorneys need to be crafting their closings.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 1m1 minute ago
Defense will now argue a motion on required findings of not guilty at the close of evidence.

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 57s58 seconds ago
First issue: count of unnatural rape (stick in woods). Defense says Ritzer wasn't alive, so it's not rape.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 1m1 minute ago
Osler, defense atty, argues again that Colleen Ritzer wasn't alive when violated in the woods.

 

[jacct]

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet 2m2 minutes ago
The defense is once again asking Lowy to dismiss the second aggravated rape charge that occurred in the woods

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet 44s44 seconds ago
A medical examiner could not pinpoint when Colleen Ritzer died from blood loss. Lowy denies the motion.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 42s42 seconds ago
Lowy denies the defense motion to find #PhilipChism not guilty on the sexual assault in woods. Jury will decide.


Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 48s48 seconds ago
Another issue is whether jury could find that #PhilipChism guilty of larceny instead of armed robbery.

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 58s58 seconds ago
Back to brain scans. Defense says brain scans would be evidence that #PhilipChism had legitimate severe mental health symptoms.

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 1m1 minute ago
"It refutes the feigning of severe mental health symptoms which is the Commonwealth's case," defense says.

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 45s45 seconds ago
Now #PhilipChism is waiving his appearance for the rest of the day

 

[jacct]

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 1m1 minute ago Osler wants the jury to be told you can't sexually assault a dead body. Judge says he's concerned about confusing jury, denies.

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet
#PhilipChism has decided he wants to leave again. "I don't care about that," prosecutor Kate MacDougall snaps. But Lowy sounds weary of it.

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet 1m1 minute ago
Nevertheless, after speaking with #PhilipChism, Lowy lets him go.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 2m2 minutes ago
He had also waived his presence for today but was here anyway

Bob Ward Fox25Verified account ‏@Bward3 3m3 minutes ago
Court is in recess. #PhilipChism has left courtroom.

 

[jacct]

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 5m5 minutes ago
We're in a break. Judge will get attorneys proposed jury instructions. They will also file affidavits re: brain scans.

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 5m5 minutes ago
We'll be reconvening at some point, but not entirely clear when.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 5m5 minutes ago
The brain scan issue could delay the closing arguments.

 

[jacct]

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet 3m3 minutes ago
Each rape charge carries a life sentence that could impact his parole eligibility.

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet 2m2 minutes ago
And it surely bolsters the state's extreme atrocity and cruelty first degree murder theory.


There was a twitter question about why the defense wants the unnatural rape thrown out. The above is the reply to the question.

 

[Skigirl]

Regarding the issue of late disclosure, I have found some case law for Massachusetts just googling the issue. From Commonwealth v. Trapp (1996), where the prosecution disclosed two rebuttal witnesses on the day of jury empanelment:



So the three factors which come into play for Lowy's decision will be:
1) Whether the counsel who had the late disclosure acted in good faith;
2) Whether the opposing counsel was unduly surprised; and
3) Whether the opposing counsel had adequate time to prepare.

Precedent in Massachusetts appears to be fairly open to late disclosures, so I think the main focus here will be the lack of good faith and the fact that a lot of these things came out of left field. I am not sure which way he will go. From the tweets alone, it seems like defense hasn't been acting in good faith, but without hard evidence of that, it's hard to say.

Gah, again with the scans, the defense is like a broken record. It seems weird (but refreshing to me) that the judge would just come out and say, "I don't believe the expert." Is it common for a judge to make statements like that?

I wonder when the scans took place -- is that something we were told? Did the defense have them and sit on them for a long time, or were they done just before the trial started?

 

[jacct]

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet 9m9 minutes ago
Closings scheduled for tomorrow; but incredibly, Lowy now needs to consider flying Satterthwaite in to testify on brain scans

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet 3m3 minutes ago
The trial teams have been sent to their corners while Lowy works this unforeseen predicament out

 

[jacct]

Gah, again with the scans, the defense is like a broken record. It seems weird (but refreshing to me) that the judge would just come out and say, "I don't believe the expert." Is it common for a judge to make statements like that?

I wonder when the scans took place -- is that something we were told? Did the defense have them and sit on them for a long time, or were they done just before the trial started?

I went back and found the tweet where Dr. Dudley said he evaluated PC in Feb. and March this year. Dr. Dudley is the one that ordered the scans so it must have been in this time frame.

The defense had the scans but did not turn them over to the prosecution until 3 days before trial start. That was also when they said they had a new expert (Dr. Satterthwaite) that they wanted to have testify about brain scans and their ability to show schizophrenia.

 

[jacct]

Laurel J. SweetVerified account ‏@Laurel_Sweet [video=twitter;674977304104275968]https://twitter.com/Laurel_Sweet/status/674977304104275968[/video]
Lowy knows how he handles brain scans could be a point of appeal. The judge will be judged harshly if he doesn't give #PhilipChism a chance.

The judge is in a difficult position but I can't get over the late disclosure from the defense. I understand the defense should be able to put any and all evidence before the jury but shouldn't they have to disclose this in a timely fashion?

IMO the scans and 2 expert witnesses were purposefully hidden until the trial start so the prosecution would not have time to have their own experts prepare. Seems there should be some case law that addresses this. There is for the prosecution and sanctions would be given if they had pulled this so why doesn't that apply to the defense?

Also, originally the defense wanted their experts to show the scans as evidence that PC had or might have schizophrenia. When their own expert testified that brain scans can't be used to diagnosis psychosis and schizophrenia (Dr. Gur testified to this) I think Judge Lowy was comfortable in precluding this.

Now the defense wants to use the scans to show that PC low brain volume is evidence of his behavior and why he appeared to malinger on tests. Sounds like junk science to me. Apparently this defense thinks brain scans can be used to show whatever mental illness a defendant might want to claim.

 

[Greggy]

Judge Lowy has done a fine job during this trial reining in a Defense team of mustangs. I realize he doesn't want to generate any grounds for a successful appeal, but letting this controversial testimony in may be unfairly prejudicial to the Prosecution. Coming at a surprising late point in the trial, the Jury may give the brain scan testimony far more weight than it deserves. Since Lowy has openly stated in court that he doesn't buy into the credibility of the brain scan data, the damage is done and he should, in my opinion, not allow the testimony. I hope strong Judge Lowy doesn't go Ito on us.

 

[gxm]

IMO, when the defense has to stoop to this sort of trickery, that's an indication they don't have any real evidence to back up their plea.

 

[jacct]

Here's an appeal case in Federal Court that was filed in a death penalty case. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to death. Part of the appeal concerned Dr. Ruben Gur and reversible error because the judge did not allow brain scans to be presented as part of the defense mitigation. The federal court found that there is no scientifically recognized significance to MRI evidence and it is methodologically unreliable.

So there is precedent for Judge Lowy to use to rule the scans out.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/41/4/597.full

Finally, the court acknowledged that the threshold for admissibility under the Federal Death Penalty Act is low and noted that the exclusion of Dr. Gur's testimony from the penalty phase represented a reversible error. It noted that Dr. Gur's interpretation of the PET scan as it pertained to a diagnosis of pseudocyesis was arguably admissible when this lower standard was used. However, it concluded that any error resulting from its exclusion was ultimately harmless. Furthermore, because the MRI evidence was both methodologically unreliable and, in this case, “had no scientifically recognized significance,” the district court acted within its authority when it concluded that “the results were irrelevant to Montgomery's insanity defense and the mitigating factors she pleaded” (Montgomery, p 1093).

 

[MsJosie]

I would want the Prosecution to have their own brain scans.....I wonder if scans can be 'adjusted' by machine settings etc.