Case Study Of Patrece Petersen's Criminal Case

1231 Words 5 Pages
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…
Chin explains that he believes this was a tactical move to influence the jury: “One question that we sometimes ask is: “Do you think that young African males are more likely to commit crimes than others or Caucasian males?” That’s because, I believe – and in my experience I’ve gotten many responses – affirmative responses, “Yes, I do.” My job in this case was to keep that type of prejudice out of this case.” Chin also points out that for the same reason he feels he made a mistake in allowing Marshard to introduce the mug shot of the defendant; this is the third issue that Chin raises.
3. Falsely representing there was an identification issue in order to present the defendant’s mug shot.
Marshard indicated during the trial that identification of the defendant was an issue and asked to present a mug shot of the defendant; defense counsel “vehemently opposed” that the mug shot be allowed in. Despite defense counsel’s objection, Judge Chin allowed the use of the mug shot, but in retrospect feels that he did not make the right call. During jury instructions Marshard did not seek an instruction on identification, which led Chin to believe the introduction of the mug shot was purely to influence the jury.
4. Using the 5th Amendment as a tactic to keep certain witnesses from

Related Documents