COMPLAINT
Patrece Petersen, a defendant, who was prosecuted by Laura Marshard of the Cape and Islands District Attorney’s Office, sent a complaint on October 20, 2014, alleging that Marshard met privately with a witness in Petersen’s criminal case, after the witness had been assigned counsel due to a potential 5th Amendment issue (Dkt# 1435CR000551). As a result of this complaint, the office has received information from, Judge Chin, regarding other instances of misconduct by Marshard. Marshard has allegedly violated Mass.R.Prof.C.3.8 (d).
FACTS
On September 22, 2014, Petersen was in court for a probable cause hearing, in reference to docket number: 1435CR000551; victim/witness David Silvia (also spelled as Sylvia) was also present at the …show more content…
On October 30, 2014, an O’Dell Motion hearing date was set in reference to Commonwealth vs. Merkman, Jean-Francois, and Phillip. During an investigation Detective Curelli seized the phone of a known drug dealer. He later used the dealer’s phone to correspond with another individual who was believed to be the individual’s supplier; during the course of the investigation he identified and arrested the individual who he had been communicating with. When the case was being presented to the Grand Jury, it appears that the state trooper testifying misrepresented the facts of the case. The misrepresentation was in reference to a key piece of information that led to the arrest of Jean-Francois. The trooper who was asked to testify was not the detective, who made the arrest, but he had been a part of the investigation; it is unclear why the original arresting detective did not testify. During the trooper’s testimony he made false statements that implied the arresting detective had more concrete evidence during the stop of the individual than he truly did. Marshard failed to correct the trooper or take the necessary steps to confirm that the information being presented to the Grand Jury was accurate. The information was based off of a cellphone communications viewed solely on the device that the detective was using leading up to the arrest. At no time did the police examine the defendant’s phone or submit cell phone records from the carrier to support their claim that they were in fact communicating with this individual. Before the O’Dell Motion could be heard the Cape and Island’s District Attorney’s Office nolle prossed the
Patrece Petersen, a defendant, who was prosecuted by Laura Marshard of the Cape and Islands District Attorney’s Office, sent a complaint on October 20, 2014, alleging that Marshard met privately with a witness in Petersen’s criminal case, after the witness had been assigned counsel due to a potential 5th Amendment issue (Dkt# 1435CR000551). As a result of this complaint, the office has received information from, Judge Chin, regarding other instances of misconduct by Marshard. Marshard has allegedly violated Mass.R.Prof.C.3.8 (d).
FACTS
On September 22, 2014, Petersen was in court for a probable cause hearing, in reference to docket number: 1435CR000551; victim/witness David Silvia (also spelled as Sylvia) was also present at the …show more content…
On October 30, 2014, an O’Dell Motion hearing date was set in reference to Commonwealth vs. Merkman, Jean-Francois, and Phillip. During an investigation Detective Curelli seized the phone of a known drug dealer. He later used the dealer’s phone to correspond with another individual who was believed to be the individual’s supplier; during the course of the investigation he identified and arrested the individual who he had been communicating with. When the case was being presented to the Grand Jury, it appears that the state trooper testifying misrepresented the facts of the case. The misrepresentation was in reference to a key piece of information that led to the arrest of Jean-Francois. The trooper who was asked to testify was not the detective, who made the arrest, but he had been a part of the investigation; it is unclear why the original arresting detective did not testify. During the trooper’s testimony he made false statements that implied the arresting detective had more concrete evidence during the stop of the individual than he truly did. Marshard failed to correct the trooper or take the necessary steps to confirm that the information being presented to the Grand Jury was accurate. The information was based off of a cellphone communications viewed solely on the device that the detective was using leading up to the arrest. At no time did the police examine the defendant’s phone or submit cell phone records from the carrier to support their claim that they were in fact communicating with this individual. Before the O’Dell Motion could be heard the Cape and Island’s District Attorney’s Office nolle prossed the