Commonwealth v. Richardson (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-019-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT Docket No. 11-10159 COMMONWEALTH vs. KAREEM RICHARDSON FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOLLOWING MISTRIAL Defendant Kareem Richardson is facing long-pending, serious charges arising from events that occurred at Rumors nightclub in 2010.1 After defendant’s successful motion for a mistrial, the case is before me on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Egregious Misconduct (Docket #106).2 After hearing, I am constrained to deny the motion. Introduction After a series of previously failed attempts,3 this case came before me for trial in July 2017. In the midst of trial, and without prior notice to the Court, the Boston Police caused a warrant to be issued for Mr. Richardson for misdemeanor charges out of the Taunton District Court; arranged for its fugitive unit to arrest Mr. Richardson on that warrant; and chose to make the arrest at about 8:30 a.m. as Mr. Richardson was entering the public entrance of the Suffolk County Courthouse for the fourth day of trial. Not surprisingly, jurors selected for this trial were 1 Defendant is charged with indecent assault and battery on a person over 14, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (two counts), assault with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery, and carrying a dangerous weapon. 2 Also before me is a motion to dismiss on speedy trial act grounds. I will address that motion separately. 3 Trial has begun, or nearly begun, a number of times. Issues in the case have been reviewed at least twice by a Single Justice under G.L. c. 211, § 3. 2 also entering the building through the public entrance and observed the police apprehend Mr. Richardson. Because the police removed Mr. Richardson from the premises, trial proceedings were delayed and jurors understandably discussed their observations in the jury room as the jury, the lawyers, investigators, witnesses and the Court waited for the police to bring Mr. Richardson back to the courthouse. After interviewing each of the jurors, I granted a defense request for a mistrial. Defendant now moves to dismiss the case, claiming that the police officers’ actions induced him to move for a mistrial and should be chargeable to the Commonwealth for double jeopardy purposes. Over two days, I conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss. I heard testimony from 12 witnesses and received 12 exhibits. I now find the following facts based on a preponderance of the credible evidence. FINDINGS OF FACT On June 5, 2017,4 this case was set for trial on July 17.5 On July 13, I held a final pretrial conference. The Commonwealth was represented by Assistant District Attorney Lindsey Weinstein. At all relevant times before me, […]

Read more...