The encouragement and allowance of peaceful protest and free speech is a cornerstone of the United States Constitution and is solidified in the First Amendment. Our nation was created from political dispute with England, and angry protests and fiery speeches energized the rebellion. Now, almost 250 years later, political disputes, speeches and demonstrations are once again front and center.

Like all freedoms, there are rules and parameters to be followed and require close judicial scrutiny. Every demonstration and/or speech has unique characteristics, and the behavior of the crowd and the speakers must conform to the established rules or result in sanctions or at times arrest.

In this episode, Bill and Jordan discuss the significance of the First Amendment and how historic court rulings protect the rights of groups and individuals but also balance them against the rights of all citizens. For example, they forbid speech that threatens violence or incites imminent violence or destruction of property (Clear and Present Danger speech). Similarly, they set limits on the right to demonstrate by allowing government entities to set “time, place and manner” restrictions, but they also tell government officials that their decisions must be “content neutral” and can’t favor one group over another because of their beliefs and ideology.

This episode concludes the discussion about the mass murder in Wakefield MA. on December 26, 2001. Previously, Jordan and Bill led listeners through an exhaustive examination of the investigative process and the legal challenges that led up to the trial of Commonwealth vs. Michael “Mucko” McDermott.

Today they focus on the trial in general and distinguish the differences in trial methods and process when a defendant offers a defense of Insanity. Listen as Bill describes the jury selection, the in-person viewing of three relevant locations and the prosecution’s trial testimony. Regardless of the defense, the prosecution still had to prove 7 counts of Murder in the First Degree beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense of Insanity requires expert medical testimony that concludes with a medical opinion that the defendant was either substantially unable to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of their conduct, or, they were substantially unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. The prosecution is given the opportunity to rebut the defense with testimony from their own medical experts.

The defense in this case differed dramatically from most because McDermott testified in an effort to convince the jurors of his insanity.

A defendant always has the presumption of innocence, and the prosecution always carries the burden of proving their case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The burden is high because the stakes are as well. In a murder conviction, the defendant could lose their freedom for the remainder of their natural life. So, the preparation work leading up to a trial is enormous and needs to be on point.

In this week’s episode Jordan and Bill discuss the process leading up to a trial, beginning with the thoroughness and required documentation of every step of the investigation. They speak about the presentment of evidence to the Grand Jury and the criminal indictments and the move to Superior Court. They address the mandatory exchange of an often enormous amount of discovery materials between the prosecutor and the defense counsel and how that information becomes the basis of trial motions and hearings that determine what evidence and information will be allowed during the trial.

The murder case against Michael McDermott, while seemingly iron-clad, takes a turn when the defense advises the trial judge they intend to pursue the affirmative defense of Insanity. Now the prosecution must not only prove the murder charges against McDermott but also defend against the claim that he was “substantially unable to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct” and/or that he was “substantially unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law”.

We continue our review of the mass murder in Wakefield and focus on the importance of protecting the crime scene in the original condition, preserving it from additional contamination, before documenting and meticulously collecting all of the evidence for additional testing at the crime lab and beyond.

Bill addresses the strict judicial interpretations of the 4th Amendment regarding search and seizure, and he explains when, where and why a search warrant is required. He also mentions the limited exceptions to the requirement and how they factored into their decisions in this case. The process is tedious but necessary if the prosecution wants to later admit their findings at a trial.

We close with information about what was seized in the searches and how the information assisted in determining the next steps of the investigation.

Every death investigation presents unforeseen and unpredictable issues and complications. Each requires immediate, but considered decision making to restore order and safety, preserve the crime scene(s), summon the needed practitioners to assist, all the while keeping out those folks that aren’t central to the investigation. Only then can the next steps be determined and prioritized to move the investigation forward.

In this episode we return to the scene of the mass murder in Wakefield MA on 12/26/2000. Jordan and Bill discuss the difficulties of managing a large-scale investigation made more complicated by environmental and logistical issues that resulted in heartbreaking and less than optimum results.

The topic of crisis leadership is also examined as Bill speaks to the extraordinary personal and professional response to the tragedy by the executive team at Edgewater Technology. It is a story of care and compassion that should serve as a benchmark for all businesses to follow.

Every homicide investigation and prosecution is unique and, while there may be similarities to other cases, no two are ever identical. An often-quoted legal principle states “Each case turns on its own facts.”

Some cases rely on direct evidence like the defendant’s fingerprints or DNA on the murder weapon or testimony from a surviving victim or eyewitness about their observations. Other cases are built in a circumstantial manner where there may be dozens of pieces of information that alone may prove little but taken together in their entirety can prove the case against the defendant “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In this episode we begin a discussion about a mass murder in the town of Wakefield MA. where seven innocent people had their lives taken at the hands of an irrational co-worker. This case presents in a hybrid manner with direct evidence used to prove the murders, but circumstantial evidence and expert testimony necessary to push back and defeat a defense of Insanity.

Growing technological and scientific improvements and their application and benefit in criminal investigations has been extraordinary and at times mind-boggling. But, with the changes come legal, evidentiary challenges to the technology, the science behind it and the expertise of the scientists who test and evaluate the results. Court decisions are definitive and swift and can often change the course of an investigation and prosecution the moment the decision is released.

Listen in to this conversation with Jordan, Bill and their guest, Jimmy Connolly, as they discuss the history of change from when they started out as detectives in the late 70’s and 80’s through today. Jimmy refers to it as transitioning from the days of the “leather footprint” to today’s digital imprint.” They address the importance and acceptance of DNA as evidence, but also speak about how DNA results have shed light on eyewitness identifications, resulting in major changes in police procedures to insure fairness and accuracy in witness identifications. They also discuss the introduction of audio-video taped statements in interrogations and how what initially appeared to be a negative has turned out to be very positive for the police and prosecutors. Similarly, they speak to the advantages of body and dash-cams as tools that often remove doubts with judges and juries about the events that police relied on to bring criminal charges.

Bill and Jimmy rose in rank but stayed in their assignments in the detective unit. They discuss the transition from playing a subordinate role in a case to assuming the position of leader and decision-maker. As always, it is about what is best for the team and not necessarily the individual.

Today’s episode launches a new chapter in our podcast series. For the foreseeable future, the focus will be on the investigation and prosecution of homicide cases. Listen as we walk you through a series of cases, taking you from the arrival at a crime scene, through the trial preparation and prosecution of the case.

Bill, and our guests, are practitioners with decades of experience and most often first-hand knowledge of the cases they will discuss. They will define the investigative and legal process as well as the rational reasoning that goes into their decision-making. They will also explain how and why legal precedents and evidentiary rulings guide and control the flow of the cases from the very beginning.

Our first guest is James (Jimmy) Connolly, a retired Major from the Massachusetts State Police, and the current Director of Public Safety at a large university in downtown Boston. During his diverse and lengthy career Jimmy spent more than 20 years as an investigator, supervisor of cases and unit commander in the Middlesex County District Attorney’s office in Cambridge, MA. Upon promotion to the rank of Major he was assigned as the Director of the State Crime Laboratory. Jimmy’s experience and assignments allow him to talk about case development from a few different perspectives.