Pages: 80 Exhibits: See Index COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT DOCKET NO: 8181CR01712-14 *************************************************** COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS v. JAMES RODWELL *************************************************** MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS P. BILLINGS APPEARANCES: For the Commonwealth: Middlesex District Attorney’s Office 15 Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, Massachusetts 01801 By: Robert Bender, ADA Laura Kirshenbaum, ADA Kate Kleimola, ADA For the Defendant: White & Associates, P.C. 11 Beacon Street, Suite 914 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 By: Veronica J. White, Esq. Benjamin F. Leatherman, Esq. Max Bauer, Esq. Woburn, Massachusetts Courtroom 640 Thursday, March 2, 2016 Paula Pietrella Official Court Reporter 2 I N D E X Closing arguments: On Behalf of the Defendant - Page 5, 57 On Behalf of the Commonwealth - Page 28 NUMBER (None) EXHIBITS PAGE 4 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 (In court at 2:05 p.m.) 3 (Defendant not present.) 4 5 THE COURT: Please be seated. Court is in session. 6 THE CLERK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 8 THE CLERK: Your Honor, the matter before the 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 court is Commonwealth v. James Rodwell, docket 1981-1712. Would all counsel please identify themselves to the court. MS. KLEIMOLA: Good afternoon. for the Commonwealth. MS. KIRSHENBAUM: Laura Kirshenbaum for the Commonwealth. MR. BENDER: Robert Bender, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. MS. WHITE: Good afternoon. 20 behalf of James Rodwell. 21 MR. LEATHERMAN: 22 23 24 25 Kate Kleimola Veronica White on Ben Leatherman on behalf of Mr. Rodwell. MR. BAUER: Max Bauer on behalf of Mr. Rodwell. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Ready for closing 5 1 arguments? 2 MS. WHITE: Yes, Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: All right. Ms. White, you go 4 first. 5 CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: 6 MS. WHITE: May it please the court, on May 7 22, 1981, Jimmy Rodwell was 25 years old when he 8 was arrested for the murder of Louis Rose, the son 9 of a police captain. Rose had been murdered on 10 December 3rd of 1978. 11 arrest, Jimmy Rodwell was tried to a jury. 12 convicted almost exclusively on the testimony of 13 Francis Holmes, an immunized co-conspirator, and 14 David Nagle, who stated that James Rodwell 15 confessed to the murder of Rose while the two of 16 them were housed in the Billerica House of 17 Correction together. 18 Six months after his He was David Nagle testified that these conversations 19 occurred sometime through the end of June of 1981. 20 David Nagle testified that he had absolutely no 21 contact with a police officer associated with the 22 Rodwell murder case prior to July 9, 1981. 23 David Nagle testified that the first time he 24 made contact with Detective Lieutenant Spartichino 25 was on July 9th of 1981, and that Detective 6 1 William McDermott put Nagle in contact with 2 Detective Lieutenant Spartichino. 3 Detective Lieutenant Spartichino sat with the 4 prosecutor, David Siegel, throughout the trial 5 against James Rodwell, and throughout this trial 6 he failed to correct the false testimony that was 7 given by David Nagle. 8 uncorrected. 9 10 11 He allowed perjury to go Impunity wears a familiar mask, and now it is time for the disinfectant of disclosure. What the jury, the trial court, and the 12 appeals court never learned about David Nagle was 13 that he was a paid and registered DEA informant 14 since the spring of 1979; that he received 44 15 payments by the DEA as of February of 1981; that 16 David Nagle was arrested for the armed robbery of 17 a dust dealer, Jeffrey Wilcox, by the Somerville 18 Police on May 9, 1980, at DEA headquarters 19 Conveniently, ADA Siegel skips over this arrest 20 during the direct examination of David Nagle. 21 This arrest was very significant. David Nagle 22 was arrested by Somerville Police at the DEA 23 headquarters, and the Somerville Police later went 24 to the clerk magistrate in the Somerville District 25 Court and told him that David Nagle was DEA. 7 1 Because of that, David Nagle was released on his 2 own personal recognizance. 3 was released, he went back to the DEA and was paid 4 $75. 5 point on. 6 And in fact, after he He continued his work with the DEA from that Nagle defaulted while actively working for the 7 DEA on this case, on June 9th of 1980, and no 8 warrant was issued for his arrest until several 9 weeks later, until after there was a report 10 11 recommending his deactivation. The jury never learned that the same 12 Somerville Police detective who arrested James 13 Rodwell and the same officer that helped prosecute 14 David Nagle on the armed robbery case that he was 15 arrested for on May 9th of 1980, would later meet 16 David Nagle’s DEA handler on October 24th of 1980. 17 Detective Philip Oteri meets with David Nagle’s 18 DEA handler on October 24, 1980. 19 I’m repeating that because it’s very 20 important; that Detective Philip Oteri offered 21 David Nagle a deal. 22 robbery case in exchange for David Nagle’s 23 continued cooperation with low-level deals. 24 is the type of promise that under Commonwealth v. 25 Reynolds creates a government agent. He would dismiss that armed This 8 1 Detective Oteri, who knew this information, 2 who worked with the DEA, who knew that Nagle was a 3 paid and registered DEA informant, had also 4 investigated the Rose murder in December of 1978. 5 We had a handwriting expert identify his 6 handwriting to be consistent. 7 handwriting expert identify the handwriting on a 8 note to be consistent with the handwriting of 9 Detective Philip Oteri, a note that was written in We had a 10 conjunction with the investigation of the Rose 11 murder. 12 The jury never heard that sometime before 13 January of 1981, David Nagle told a Somerville 14 district court judge that he defaulted because he 15 feared for his safety as a result of his DEA 16 involvement. 17 The jury never heard that Nagle held up two 18 women at a pharmacy in Newton, committed an armed 19 robbery but was never arrested for that armed 20 robbery, was never booked for that armed robbery, 21 and was never charged with that armed robbery 22 until after the Rodwell trial. 23 At the end of April, David Nagle is arrested, 24 again for several armed robberies, out of Suffolk 25 County. He’s taken into custody at this time, and 9 1 he’s given a $50,000 bail, and he’s put into the 2 Billerica House of Corrections, a Middlesex jail, 3 despite the fact that he’s facing Suffolk charges. 4 He’s in the Billerica House of Correction 5 around the 22d of April of 1981. Frankie Holmes 6 is in the Billerica House of Corrections, and at 7 the end of April, Frankie Holmes speaks to Trooper 8 Powers, tells Powers that Jimmy Rodwell murdered 9 Louis Rose. Frankie Holmes becomes an unindicted 10 co-conspirator who is later given immunity, a 11 lobbyist to Spartichino, who’s also present for 12 the meeting with Frankie Holmes that he needed 13 corroboration. 14 Rodwell based on a statement of an unindicted co- 15 conspirator. 16 Couldn’t just convict Jimmy We know that Spartichino was in the Billerica 17 House of Corrections in early May of 1981, 18 speaking to Powers, speaking to Frankie Holmes. 19 And what we also know as a result of David Nagle 20 waiving his privilege upon death is that David 21 Nagle wrote a letter to his attorney, the 22 competence of the attorney-client privilege, 23 writes a letter that’s date-stamped May 5th of 24 1981. 25 He tells his attorney, “I have some good news. 10 1 I made a deal with Brighton, a 10-year indef and 2 they are going to Middlesex. 3 Middlesex authorities. 4 will have to go back to Brighton 5-18. 5 to Greenfield because I have to testify.” 6 I also helped Things will work out. I I might go Nothing has ever been presented in this court 7 that Nagle testified in any other case other than 8 the case of Commonwealth v. James Rodwell. 9 fact, Diane Juliar testified to this exact fact. 10 In What the jury never learned in Jimmy Rodwell’s 11 case was that in sometime in May of 1981, either 12 May 1 or May 18, David Nagle was approached by 13 State Police troopers out of Spartichino’s office, 14 who threatened to quote, “Pinch his wife unless 15 they helped him get Rodwell.” 16 information that David Nagle told to his attorneys 17 on four separate occasions. 18 this happened in May. 19 Nagle was still on the payroll of the federal 20 government. 21 government as a DEA agent, he’s in the Brighton 22 lockup and he’s approached by State Police working 23 on behalf of Spartichino. 24 of statement that created an agency relationship, 25 and I’ll get into that in a little bit. This was It was clear that This happened while David While on the payroll of the federal Again, this is the type 11 1 On May 18th, David Nagle waived probable cause 2 hearing in exchange for assurances that he would 3 be transferred out of Billerica. 4 ordered the transcript. 5 ADA Robert Nelson told Nagle’s attorney, Marty 6 Rosenthal, that this transfer isn’t going to 7 happen. 8 a problem with this transportation. 9 problem apparently continued for another month and Sorry. The judge But on May 26th of 1981, In fact, Middlesex said there was And this 10 a half because David Nagle was never transferred 11 out of Billerica until the 14th of July of 1981, 12 conveniently on the 26th of May. 13 supposed to be transferred to Greenfield and 14 remained in Billerica, Jimmy Rodwell is brought in 15 to Billerica House of Corrections. 16 When he was The jury in Jimmy Rodwell’s case never learned 17 that on June 12, 1981, Diane Juliar, Nagle’s 18 attorney, told a superior court judge that Nagle 19 had given, quote, a great deal of information to 20 the Suffolk DA’s office and actually some 21 Middlesex police as well regarding other matters. 22 The only way that Mr. Rodwell got a hold of 23 the transcripts of the June 12th hearing was 24 because a reporter gave it to him. 25 Commonwealth never provided him with any of this The 12 1 information. 2 Juliar knows of no other case where David Nagle 3 testified other than the case of Commonwealth v. 4 Rodwell. 5 And as I said before, Attorney The jury in James Rodwell’s case never learned 6 that in June of 1981, Detective Lieutenant 7 Spartichino met Nagle. 8 fact. 9 letter that’s dated January of 1982, from And this is an important And this fact is laid out in a letter, a 10 Detective Lieutenant Spartichino to ADA Nelson, a 11 letter that was never turned over to Mr. Rodwell. 12 The significance of this letter is it shows 13 that Nagle met with Spartichino prior to the date 14 that he testified that he saw Spartichino for the 15 first time. 16 saw Detective Lieutenant Spartichino was the 7th 17 of July, and the first time I met him, he assured 18 me that he would speak on my behalf.” 19 Nagle testified, “The first time I Well, that promise made by Spartichino created 20 a government agency. 21 his cooperation, under Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 22 created an agency relationship. 23 dated January of 1982, shows that that contact was 24 made in January -- strike that -- in June of 1981. 25 That promise to recognize The letter that’s The jury in Jimmy Rodwell’s case never learned 13 1 that despite what Nagle had testified at the 2 trial, that he was put in touch with Spartichino 3 through his good friend, Detective McDermott. 4 jury was never told that this actually was a 5 complete lie, a complete, bold-face lie. 6 The Detective McDermott got on that stand and he 7 testified unequivocally that he never put David 8 Nagle in touch with Detective Lieutenant 9 Spartichino. 10 The jury in Jimmy Rodwell’s case was never -- 11 the jury and the court and the appellate courts 12 that decided the fate of James Rodwell never heard 13 that Lieutenant Detective Spartichino moved heaven 14 and earth to ensure that David Nagle got a good 15 deal, intervening with at least six people in the 16 Suffolk DA’s office, including DA Flanagan. 17 These six people in the Suffolk DA’s office 18 were beyond the actual prosecutor, ADA Robert 19 Nelson, who wasn’t giving Nagle a good enough 20 deal, and so Spartichino attempted to have him 21 replaced. 22 Spartichino also intervened with Judge 23 Linscott on February 26, 1982, on David Nagle’s 24 behalf. 25 never knew that Detective Lieutenant Spartichino The jury, the court, appellate court, 14 1 also promised Nagle intervention with the parole 2 board and one-third time. 3 Rodwell was facing a trial only six months after 4 his arrest and made a specific request for full 5 and complete statements of all promises, rewards, 6 inducements of any kind, what the government 7 disclosed about a man on the payroll of the DEA 8 since February of 1979, quote, “No promises, 9 rewards or inducements have been offered or given Because when James 10 to Mr. Nagle regarding his testimony. 11 Spartichino made that clear to Mr. Nagle. 12 However, the Lieutenant did tell him that when 13 this case was finished, he, Lieutenant 14 Spartichino, would write to or inform the DEA of 15 Middlesex and Suffolk counties of Mr. Nagle’s 16 cooperation in the matter. 17 pending in these two counties. 18 what the government has maintained: 19 rewards, inducements, despite this laundry list of 20 intervention. 21 Lieutenant Mr. Nagle had cases And that has been no promises, The trial court and appellate courts that 22 decided the fate of James Rodwell never learned 23 that ADA McEvoy, a Middlesex prosecutor who was 24 also prosecuting David Nagle, was approached by 25 Lieutenant Detective Spartichino in his office. 15 1 Lieutenant Detective Spartichino wasn’t even 2 helping him prosecute the cases against David 3 Nagle, but went into his office and told him that 4 he was upset with the deal. 5 recommendation that McEvoy was giving. 6 Nelson who saw the long history of David Nagle’s 7 past as a career offender, McEvoy offered a higher 8 recommendation than what was acceptable to 9 Lieutenant Detective Spartichino. 10 He was upset with the Like ADA And then a senior ADA from Middlesex ordered 11 ADA McEvoy to lower his recommendation. 12 ask him. 13 recommendation. 14 McEvoy got up on that stand and testified that he 15 did what he was told. 16 12 concurrent on six armed robberies and one 17 kidnapping in Middlesex and Suffolk counties. 18 He didn’t He didn’t ask him to lower that He ordered him to do it. And So David Nagle got a 7 to What the appellate courts never learned was 19 that by November of 1982, the latest, David Nagle 20 was back working as a DEA in New York City. 21 ADA James Sahakian testified that a 22 substantial number of files were missing from the 23 attorney general’s office. 24 despite this huge fact of capital cases supposedly 25 missing from the attorney general’s office. He doesn’t remember He 16 1 didn’t report this to anyone. 2 to anyone higher up in his own office. 3 certainly didn’t report this to James Rodwell or 4 his attorneys. 5 He didn’t report it And he Sometime between 1997 and 1998, ADA Grant was 6 unable to locate files for the Rodwell case. 7 was informed that the AG’s office had, quote, no 8 files from the Shannon administration. 9 never informed Rodwell or his attorneys that the ADA Grant 10 files were missing. 11 learn that the files were missing until 2013. 12 She In fact, Mr. Rodwell didn’t Had ADA Grant done her job and informed Mr. 13 Rodwell that the file in his capital case was 14 missing back in 1997, Mr. Rodwell would have had 15 the opportunity to reconstruct the record then, to 16 call witnesses then, to call witnesses who were 17 alive, such as David Nagle, Detective Lieutenant 18 Spartichino, key witnesses who are dead today. 19 The jury, the trial court and appellate courts 20 never learned that David Nagle told David Chase, 21 his own brother, that he was worried about getting 22 jammed up on a perjury charge. 23 This is just among the main factual points 24 that I have pulled from over twelve hundred pages 25 of transcripts, three to four thousand pages of 17 1 evidence that has been gathered in an 2 investigation for the past five years. 3 I’ve realized from looking at all of this evidence 4 is there was no constitution in existence when 5 Jimmy Rodwell was tried. 6 nullity. 7 Detective Spartichino was driving the bus, and the 8 senior DA’s from Middlesex County and Suffolk 9 County were the ones in control. And what The constitution was a The constitution didn’t apply. They were using 10 lower DA’s with less experience, like David 11 Siegel, who never tried a murder case before. 12 Hey, David, why don’t you try this case. 13 only a month and a half before the trial date. 14 know you’ve never tried a murder case before. 15 Here you go, the case of Commonwealth v. James 16 Rodwell. 17 It’s I Here’s your thin file. ADA Nelson testified on the stand and said 18 unequivocally that Spartichino approached the 19 sidebar with Judge Linscott on his own, that he 20 was not up there, not up at the sidebar with him. 21 The Commonwealth is going to tell you that 22 they think ADA Nelson for some reason has a bias, 23 that because he didn’t get the deal he wanted and 24 the promotion he wanted, that that justifies him 25 lying under oath about this. 18 1 They’re relying on transcripts of that plea 2 hearing that said that Marty Rosenthal wanted all 3 parties to approach at sidebar. 4 sidebar was taken off the record, that’s when 5 Spartichino took control. 6 everyone else back and went right up to Linscott 7 and sabotaged that plea. 8 unilaterally highjacked the justice system for the 9 benefit of a stool pigeon, David Nagle. 10 But when that That’s when he moved That’s when Spartichino The lower DA’s in Suffolk County, Middlesex 11 County, with a pawn of senior DA’s remained hidden 12 in the background, greasing the wheels of the 13 justice system. 14 And still, the Commonwealth wants move 15 evidence from James Rodwell, it’s still not 16 enough, all while they were the ones who destroyed 17 his trial file, as if James Rodwell was sent to 18 war and given no ammunition, sitting there at 19 counsel table completely blind-sided by a 20 prosecution that manifested a disturbing abuse of 21 power. 22 his ammunition, and they convicted him for life. 23 For the past 35 years he’s been fighting for They sent him to war and they took away 24 his freedom. And now this evidence, which is 25 powerful, shows Your Honor that there has been 19 1 severe constitutional violations that warrant a 2 new trial in this case. 3 Specific requests were made by my client for 4 promises, rewards, inducements. 5 despite these specific requests, allowed perjury 6 to stand while Spartichino sat there throughout 7 the whole trial. 8 corrected. 9 The prosecution, Perjury by David Nagle was never Under the case of Kyles v. Whitley, a 10 prosecutor has a constitutional duty to learn of 11 any favorable evidence. 12 evidence did they learn of in the next 35 years 13 after Jimmy Rodwell was convicted? 14 Well, what favorable Well, they sent the transcripts -- the 15 Middlesex DA’s Office sent the transcript to the 16 United States Attorney’s Office in New York when 17 they prosecuted David Nagle for Maurad. 18 informed Mr. Rodwell of that. Never 19 It’s an interesting case of Banks v. Dretke. 20 It’s a case that Mr. Rodwell has been bringing up 21 quite a bit throughout my representation of him, 22 which has been about five years now. 23 case, the state did not disclose that one of the 24 witnesses was a paid police informant, nor did it 25 disclose a pretrial transcript revealing the other In that 20 1 witness’s trial testimony that had been intensely 2 coached by prosecutors and law enforcement 3 officers. 4 the informant testified untruthfully that he gave 5 the police any statement and indeed had not talked 6 to any police officer about the case until a few 7 days before the trial. 8 9 The prosecution raised no red flag when This is what happened in this case. All of this perjury specifically known by Spartichino 10 went uncorrected. When James Rodwell, he tried to 11 suppress a statement that David Nagle said he 12 made, and he didn’t even get an evidentiary 13 hearing, because Middlesex obstructed that. 14 Middlesex said he doesn’t have any proof that 15 David Nagle’s a government agent, despite the 16 laundry list of evidence that we now know they 17 knew. 18 don’t need to go through that evidence again. We now know Somerville Police knew. And I 19 Once the Commonwealth is on notice that a 20 defendant seeks specific favorable information in 21 its possession, it must examine the material and 22 furnish that information to the defense if it’s 23 favorable. 24 vigilance on the part of the Commonwealth for 25 information the Commonwealth knows or should know Due process requires continued 21 1 the defendant seeks as material to this defense. 2 There’s a harmless error standard that also 3 applies here, given the fact that Mr. Rodwell made 4 specific requests for evidence that was not 5 produced. 6 if the evidence would not have made a difference 7 on a material witness, then a new trial should be 8 denied. 9 undisclosed promises, rewards, inducements that The harmless error standard states that So the test, essentially, is if the 10 were made to David Nagle would have made a 11 difference to that jury. 12 witness. 13 the testimony of David Nagle. 14 corroboration. 15 have made all the difference in the world. 16 He was the material The government’s case rose and fell on No forensic That exculpatory evidence would The First Circuit, in 2003, stated, “The most 17 that can be said for his present position is that 18 the district court, if it had the benefit of a 19 more elaborate presentation of the facts 20 concerning the Faustian bargain between Nagle and 21 the prosecutor would have ruled differently in the 22 habeas case and set aside the underlying 23 conviction.” 24 The Faustian bargain has been revealed. 25 Under the government agency issue, everything 22 1 that comes in under agency should have been 2 disclosed under Brady. 3 Commonwealth v. Murphy and Commonwealth v. 4 Reynolds, that a promise to consider cooperation 5 creates a relationship. 6 that relationship prior to the alleged confession 7 because of two reasons: 8 to threaten David Nagle before Rodwell was even 9 arrested sometime in May 1981, while David Nagle The key two cases, And Spartichino created one, sending State Police 10 was still on the payroll of the federal 11 government. 12 Spartichino’s promise to bring cooperation into 13 consideration in June, not July 9th, as Nagle 14 testified to, this evidence of intervention, his 15 moving heaven and earth, is evidence, evidence 16 that David Nagle was a government agent. 17 This threat counts as an inducement. The fact that Philip Oteri was involved in the 18 Rose murder investigation that Spartichino worked 19 with local police, this is clear evidence that the 20 Somerville Police knew that David Nagle was a DEA 21 informant, the fact that Oteri worked on the Rose 22 murder investigation makes his knowledge imputed 23 to the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office. 24 knowledge, his promise to David Nagle back on 25 October 24th of 1980, that his case can be His 23 1 dismissed, his armed robbery case can be dismissed 2 if he provides information on low-level deals, 3 that’s a promise that created an agency 4 relationship. 5 officers that arrested James Rodwell on May 22d of 6 1981. 7 circumvented Miranda to have an agent of the 8 government elicit a confession. 9 court does not allow jailhouse informants, because And Philip Oteri was one of the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office This is why the 10 it’s a post-arraignment opportunity to create 11 incriminating evidence. 12 As David Chase testified about his own 13 brother, David Nagle was a manipulator. 14 to have his sentences in place before giving the 15 information. 16 that Spartichino lobbied so hard for him to get 17 him that 7 to 12. 18 This makes sense. He wanted It makes sense The Commonwealth says that the best way for us 19 to investigate the fact that the file in James 20 Rodwell’s case is missing is to have witnesses 21 testify, and we did that. 22 opportunity to have witnesses testify. 23 Marguerite Grant disclosed the filings were 24 missing to James Rodwell in 1997 and ‘98, this 25 would have allowed Jimmy Rodwell to reconstruct We had a full But had 24 1 the record back then, when David Nagle and 2 Spartichino were alive. 3 ADA Bender got up yesterday and said that we 4 are wrong in dictating how files should be kept 5 and that the standard that we demand isn’t the 6 standard that the court should be relying upon. 7 It’s not how I want it to be. 8 DA’s office wants it to be. 9 shouldn’t be able to pick what goes in and out of 10 the prosecutor’s trial file. 11 constitution demands. 12 demand. 13 It’s not how the The DA’s office It’s what the It’s what the people It’s what Jimmy Rodwell deserved. David Siegel testified under oath that he 14 would have taken notes of his conversation with 15 David Nagle and destroyed those notes pursuant to 16 the office policy regarding file-keeping. 17 the thin file policy kept by the John Droney 18 administration. 19 Commonwealth of anything, because either every 20 important piece of evidence would have gone into 21 the file, in which case it doesn’t matter whether 22 there’s a policy to keep thin files, or thin files 23 is a euphemism for destroying material documentary 24 evidence. 25 This is Thin files doesn’t avail the This isn’t just us wishing what the 25 1 Commonwealth should have in their files. 2 what the constitution say. It’s what Jimmy 3 Rodwell’s freedom demands. It’s the 50-year state 4 retention policy that tells us what to keep in the 5 file. 6 to put in the file, and they’re not allowed to 7 destroy evidence. 8 9 It’s The Commonwealth doesn’t get to decide what What kind of absurd policy is this? Why are thin piles the touchstone of the policy rather 10 than to maintain a complete and accurate file that 11 included all notes, logs, contemporaneous notes of 12 conversations between prosecutors, investigators 13 police officers, exculpatory evidence? 14 Commonwealth supposed to preserve exculpatory 15 evidence if they can’t take notes about it and 16 keep it in their files? 17 How is the The Commonwealth is going to get up and hang 18 their hat on an interview that Nagle gave with the 19 Boston Police on May 1. 20 that because David Nagle gave information on 21 Middlesex robberies in Cambridge, in Belmont, in 22 Newton during that interview, that it all makes 23 perfect sense. 24 was giving. 25 They’re going to tell you That was the information that he Back to the letter on May 5th of 1981, Nagle 26 1 tells his attorney, “I have some good news. 2 made a deal with Bright, ten year indef, and they 3 are going to Middlesex. 4 authorities.” 5 I I also helped Middlesex He helped Middlesex authorities. The letter 6 wouldn’t have said that he helped Middlesex 7 authorities if he only talked to Suffolk. 8 never testified in any other case other than the 9 case against James Rodwell. Nagle And while Nagle may 10 have given information about crimes that occurred 11 in Middlesex, the Commonwealth never put forth any 12 evidence that Nagle ever testified in any of these 13 cases. 14 We know that Lieutenant Detective Spartichino 15 was in Billerica on May 1. The Commonwealth is 16 going to say there wasn’t enough time for the May 17 5th letter to materialize for the information they 18 are to materialize. 19 written in the confidence of a client to his own 20 attorney that showed a deal was made. 21 also a 2006 letter that David Nagle wrote to the 22 Middlesex DA’s Office, indicating that he made a 23 deal to testify in a murder case and on some 24 international issues, and that the Suffolk 25 DOCUMENT was going back on their deal, again The May 5th letter was There’s 27 1 highlighting for the court that this was a deal 2 that was made with state authorities. 3 The Commonwealth is telling the court that ADA 4 Nelson is biased, that he was at sidebar with 5 Linscott and Spartichino, contrary to what he 6 actually testified to, and that his bias arises 7 from the fact that he didn’t get the plea that he 8 wanted, he didn’t get the promotion that he 9 wanted. But we know from Nelson’s testimony that 10 in fact he was able to try manslaughter cases 11 after this case and he did get the promotion and 12 he was moved on to a felony team. 13 Commonwealth accusing him of perjury? 14 So why is the I don’t need to speculate, Your Honor. The 15 evidence in this case is powerful and it’s 16 overwhelming and it shows that James Rodwell did 17 not receive a fair trial. 18 of exculpatory evidence was withheld from the 19 Somerville Police and the Middlesex District 20 Attorney’s Office. 21 It shows that mountains Your Honor has the evidence. I’d like to 22 thank you for all the time that you’ve given us 23 and the patience and how meticulous you’ve been. 24 I’d also like to take this time to thank you, 25 thank my associates, Ben Leatherman and Max Bauer. 28 1 I couldn’t have done this without them. 2 Thank you very much for your time. 3 THE COURT: 4 Who speaks for the Commonwealth? 5 All right. No way. Thank you. CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMMONWEALTH: 6 MS. KIRSHENBAUM: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 7 David Nagle was an opportunist. Whenever he 8 got himself into trouble, he would find a way to 9 get himself out of it or to minimize it; and given 10 Nagle’s lifestyle, that usually involved providing 11 information to law enforcement. 12 narrative on Nagle’s life does not make his 13 information unreliable, or, more importantly, make 14 Nagle a government agent at the time that this 15 defendant confessed to a murder. 16 But that Despite the defendant’s efforts, this hearing 17 is not a hearing about Nagle’s reliability. 18 was for the jury to decide when he testified 19 before them. 20 was a government agent at the time that the 21 defendant confessed to a murder at the Billerica 22 House of Correction. 23 That This hearing is about whether Nagle In order to prevail in this motion for a new 24 trial, the defendant has to prove, based on 25 evidence that would be admissible at a motion to 29 1 suppress, that the Commonwealth and Nagle entered 2 into an articulated agreement containing a 3 specific benefit whereby Nagle would try to obtain 4 a confession from the defendant. 5 defendant failed to meet this burden, but the 6 evidence clearly shows that Nagle was not a 7 government agent, as no such agreement existed 8 prior to Nagle’s conversations with the defendant; 9 that Nagle was not an agent of the DEA at the time Not only has the 10 of his conversations with the defendant, nor was 11 there any sort of agency relationship as defined 12 by Murphy. 13 The defendant’s other claims can be easily 14 dismissed; namely, there were no undisclosed 15 rewards given to Nagle, the lost trial file didn’t 16 contain any undisclosed exculpatory evidence, and 17 the Commonwealth didn’t know about Nagle’s work 18 for the DEA in order to have disclosed it. 19 Rather, what the evidence in this case has shown 20 was that this was a standard investigation of a 21 murder and a standard prosecution, where on 22 December 3, 1978, the Somerville Police Department 23 were notified of a dead body. 24 Somerville officers were first on the scene, the 25 investigation was quickly taken over by the And while the 30 1 Middlesex CPAC Unit and specifically Detective 2 Lieutenant Spartichino. 3 all, of the other detectives within the CPAC Unit 4 used the resources of local police departments, 5 Detective Lieutenant Spartichino preferred to work 6 on his own and did do so for the most part in this 7 case. 8 9 And while most, if not The case went cold until the end of April 1981, when the co-defendant, Francis Holmes, 10 reached out to law enforcement and confessed to 11 his role in the murder, and implicated this 12 defendant. 13 After speaking with Holmes on May 1, 1981, and 14 getting a recorded statement on May 4, 1981, 15 Detective Lieutenant Spartichino applied for and 16 received an arrest warrant for this defendant, and 17 the defendant was arrested on May 22, 1981. 18 there the defendant was housed at the Billerica 19 House of Correction starting on May 26, 1981. 20 From Un-relatedly and unfortunately for this 21 defendant, David Nagle meanwhile been engaged in a 22 crime spree that got him on the radar of local law 23 -- of law enforcement in early 1981. 24 Nagle had been working for the DEA during this 25 time, on May 15, 1981, the DEA had deactivated him And while 31 1 as an informant, likely as a result of his legal 2 problems. 3 Nagle himself was arrested on April 22, 1981, 4 and housed at Billerica House of Correction, 5 having arrived there before the defendant. 6 Spartichino and Powers were taking a statement 7 from Holmes on May 1, 1981, Nagle was at Brighton 8 District Court giving his own recorded statement 9 to Boston police officers, implicating himself, While 10 co-defendants and other individuals in a number of 11 armed robberies both in Suffolk County and 12 Middlesex County. 13 Nagle, likely realizing that he’s now facing a 14 number of charges in two different counties and 15 the help he’s provided thus far to law enforcement 16 is unlikely to help him as much as he would like 17 it to, is attentive to other opportunities to help 18 himself out, and such an opportunity presented 19 himself when Nagle became aware of this 20 defendant’s plots to murder Holmes and to provide 21 false testimony at the defendant’s trial. 22 Through those conversations, the defendant 23 provided Nagle with his confession of his 24 involvement in the Rose murder, and from there 25 Nagle contacted his most reliable law enforcement 32 1 contact who he thought of as a friend, William 2 McDermott of the Brookline Police Department. 3 From there McDermott somehow got the information 4 to the right people and namely to Spartichino. 5 Spartichino made no promises to Nagle in 6 return for Nagle’s information, but did indicate 7 that he would speak on Nagle’s behalf in his 8 pending cases and helped to arrange for Nagle to 9 be transported from Billerica to Greenfield House 10 of Correction, rewards that were disclosed to the 11 defense prior to trial and were made known to the 12 jury at the defendant’s trial. 13 Nagle then testified under oath at the 14 defendant’s trial to the defendant’s incriminatory 15 statements as to his involvement in the Rose 16 murder. 17 Spartichino spoke on Nagle’s behalf in Nagle’s 18 pending Suffolk and Middlesex cases, which 19 culminated in Nagle receiving concurrent 7-to-12 20 year sentences, which it appears he served in full 21 in light of the parole eligibility and statutory 22 good time guidelines that were in place at the 23 time. 24 25 And then, keeping to his word, And in all the years since that time, Nagle has never recanted his testimony. Instead, he’s 33 1 vehemently maintained that he told the truth at 2 the defendant’s trial and steadfastly rejected 3 allegations by the defense that he was working as 4 an agent when the defendant confessed to the 5 murder. 6 defendant’s current counsel, Attorney White, he 7 remained steadfast that he told the truth at the 8 defendant’s trial and that he was not a government 9 agent. 10 Even when confronted face to face by the The evidence at this hearing has shown, first, 11 that Nagle was not a DEA agent at the time of the 12 defendant’s confession. 13 Nagle was a DEA informant from 1979 to early 14 to mid -- to early spring 1981. He was 15 deactivated from the DEA, and the documents 16 indicate that was as of May 15, 1981. 17 defense suggests that it was a mere four days 18 before the defendant’s arrest based on a signature 19 on one of those sheets. 20 close in time the deactivation was to the 21 defendant’s arrest. 22 fact, plain and simple, that Nagle was not a DEA 23 informant at the time that he had his 24 conversations with the defendant, and there’s been 25 no evidence presented to this court to contradict And the But it doesn’t matter how Because what matters is the 34 1 2 that fact. The evidence at this hearing has also shown 3 that Nagle was not otherwise an agent of the 4 government at the time of the defendant’s 5 confession. 6 has shown that the first contact between Nagle and 7 law enforcement about the defendant’s case was on 8 July 9, 1981. 9 running sheets of Diane Juliar. The credible evidence at this hearing That is what’s reflected in the That’s also what 10 was testified to at trial by Nagle. 11 adamant in his interview with Attorney White that 12 he did not have any earlier contact with 13 Spartichino. 14 And Nagle was Evidence that the defendant thinks supports 15 his claim that there was some earlier contact with 16 Spartichino does not actually support that claim. 17 The defense has pointed to the January 1982, 18 letter of Spartichino to ADA Nelson, referencing 19 contact with Nagle in June of 1981. 20 evidence that this court has heard points to the 21 simple fact that this was a simple mistake. 22 letter was written six months after the fact and 23 served the purpose of letting ADA Nelson know of 24 Nagle’s cooperation. 25 delineate a definitive time line of Nagle and All the The It did not serve to 35 1 Spartichino’s contact. 2 statement of a person who has not been called as a 3 witness and examined under oath. 4 the circumstances under which Spartichino wrote 5 the letter, for example, if he was in a hurry and 6 didn’t proof the letter, or was simply not 7 concerned with such a minor detail given what the 8 purpose of this letter was. 9 This is an unsworn We don’t know The defense has also pointed to statements 10 Nagle made toward the end of his life about being 11 visited by state troopers and asked to go after 12 Rodwell and get a confession from him. 13 The statement Nagle -- the statement reflected 14 in the running sheets as to being visited by state 15 troopers involves a plot to murder Holmes. 16 simply could not have happened in May of 1981. 17 Both Attorney Keene and Attorney Silverman’s best 18 guess for when the alleged meeting with state 19 troopers could have happened is May 18, 1981, but 20 on that date, the defendant had not yet been 21 arrested, and Holmes did not yet have immunity. 22 So it makes no sense that there could have been 23 any plot to kill Holmes, and it follows from that 24 that it makes no sense that troopers would have 25 approached Nagle about a plot to kill Holmes and This 36 1 2 asked him to go after Rodwell. What does make sense is that Nagle was simply 3 confused and mis-remembering. 4 confused Nagle was about details from a long time 5 ago is evident at his interview with Attorney 6 White. 7 Nagle confuses his own daughter’s birthday, a 8 simple fact that he should know by heart. 9 An example of how If you look at Bates stamp page 2325, Another example is that Nagle refers to 10 several Boston Police Department officers, Rufo 11 and Pacino, as the state troopers from Middlesex 12 that he says came to visit him. 13 likely referring to and was conflating in his mind 14 was the May 1, 1981, meeting when he met with 15 Boston police officers and gave a recorded 16 statement. 17 Rufo, who were mentioned by name in that recorded 18 statement. 19 What Nagle was And those officers included Pacino and As I mentioned, this visit from state troopers 20 simply doesn’t make sense as far as the time line. 21 But it also doesn’t make sense because Spartichino 22 -- all the testimony you heard was that 23 Spartichino liked to work the cases on his own. 24 It doesn’t make sense that he would send other 25 troopers from his office to go bully Nagle into 37 1 getting a statement. 2 is itself ridiculous, that anybody would ask 3 someone to go bully an uninvolved party into 4 getting a confession out of somebody. 5 But even just that situation And what’s far more reasonable is to infer 6 that Nagle was conflating a few separate 7 instances, including the May 1st meeting with 8 Boston Police officers, and some instances that 9 are referenced in the Maurad testimony about 10 Nagle’s wife being involved in an escape plot and 11 getting threatened in her home, since these 12 elements show up in the statement about being 13 visited by state troopers. 14 We’ve also heard testimony from Attorneys 15 Silverman and Keene that around the time that 16 Nagle was making this statement about the state 17 troopers, he was suffering from end-stage liver 18 disease, a condition that caused him to have high 19 ammonia levels and caused him to be very confused. 20 Attorney Keene explained that, as he 21 represented Nagle, his physical condition 22 deteriorated, and Nagle had reported to Attorney 23 Keene that he had health issues that were making 24 it difficult for him to even concentrate or to 25 read. And based on all of these facts, it is most 38 1 reasonable to infer that Nagle was simply mis- 2 remembering what had happened. 3 this alleged state trooper visit doesn’t show up 4 anywhere until near the very end of Nagle’s life. 5 And evidence of Now, the defense has also pointed to the May 6 5, 1981, letter from Nagle to Attorney Juliar 7 referencing help to Middlesex authorities. 8 the Commonwealth has repeatedly argued that what 9 makes sense is that Nagle is referring to the And 10 statement he made to Boston police officers on May 11 1, 1981, in which he talks about armed robberies 12 that occurred in Middlesex County. 13 he talks about armed robberies that happened in 14 Belmont, Cambridge, Newton and Waltham. 15 Specifically, The defense claims that this May 5th letter 16 must reference the Rodwell trial because it says 17 Nagle was going to testify, and we don’t know of 18 any other case where Nagle testified. 19 claim falls flat, because as of the writing of 20 this letter, Nagle probably believed he was going 21 to have to testify in the cases that he was 22 cooperating on. 23 But that The defense has also pointed to the June 12, 24 1981, transcript of a bail hearing at which 25 Attorney Juliar represented to the court that 39 1 Nagle had assisted on some Middlesex cases. But 2 around this time, Nagle was cooperating on his own 3 cases and was giving information about other 4 cases. 5 hearings, any documents from this time, reflect 6 that Nagle was cooperating on cases. 7 doesn’t follow that any of this cooperation had 8 anything to do with Rodwell, particularly where 9 there’s no evidence that it had to do with So it makes perfect sense that any But it 10 Rodwell, and there’s clear evidence that Nagle was 11 cooperating on Middlesex cases unrelated to the 12 defendant’s case. 13 Now, the defense also claimed that Attorney 14 Juliar testified that the statement in the June 15 12th hearing had to do with the Rodwell case, but 16 that’s not what Attorney Juliar’s testimony was. 17 On cross-examination, when Attorney Juliar was 18 given the opportunity to cross-reference the dates 19 and look at her running sheets more closely, she 20 testified that this statement at the June 12th 21 hearing did not have to do with the defendant’s 22 case, because she had not yet heard anything about 23 any contact with Spartichino. 24 contact didn’t happen, or she had no notes of that 25 contact until almost a month after that bail She explained that 40 1 2 hearing on July 9, 1981. The defense has also claimed that an agency 3 relationship was created based on a statement, 4 which is hearsay, and the DEA document dated 5 October 24, 1980, referencing a statement by Oteri 6 that several of Nagle’s cases could be dismissed 7 if he initiated several low-level cases in 8 Somerville. 9 As I mentioned, this is hearsay. It’s totem 10 pole hearsay. 11 been talking to. 12 other inaccuracies as to what Nagle’s other 13 pending crimes were. 14 unreliability. 15 Oteri made a statement that some of Nagle’s cases 16 could be dismissed, and it says “could be 17 dismissed,” does not evince any sort of promise. 18 It also doesn’t go into enough detail about what 19 Oteri was talking about. 20 possible that this was a situation that the ADA 21 assigned to those cases was well aware of. 22 doesn’t -- there’s not enough information there to 23 determine that Oteri was unilaterally making any 24 sort of promises to Nagle. 25 We don’t know who Oteri might have That document itself contains So it evinces its own But on top of that, the fact that It’s also extremely The defense has also alleged that the So it 41 1 Commonwealth failed to correct perjury based on 2 McDermott’s testimony at this hearing. 3 way McDermott’s testimony is helpful to the 4 defense is if the defense ignores most of it and 5 re-characterizes the rest, as counsel just 6 encouraged this court to do. 7 actual testimony was, was that Nagle did contact 8 him about a murder with a Charlestown connection 9 such as happened in this case. The only What McDermott’s McDermott was 10 recalling something 35 years later and he simply 11 couldn’t remember who he passed the information 12 onto or what the specific details of it were. 13 he was clear that Nagle did contact him about a 14 murder and it was about this murder. 15 But The evidence at this hearing has also shown 16 that the defendant’s other claims can be easily 17 dismissed. 18 rewards given to Nagle. 19 that Nagle had a vaguely defined agreement; that 20 after he testified, Spartichino would speak on 21 Nagle’s behalf in his pending cases, which is 22 exactly what happened. 23 Linscott about Nagle’s cooperation, and Judge 24 Linscott went lenient on Nagle as he was known to 25 do. First, there were no undisclosed The evidence demonstrates Spartichino spoke to Judge And Nagle ended up with 7 to 12 years and got 42 1 concurrent sentences in Middlesex, which he then 2 served according to the standard parole 3 eligibility and statutory good time guidelines. 4 What the defense tries to point to as 5 additional rewards in fact doesn’t add up and was 6 part of the normal course of prosecution. 7 The defense pointed to the delayed indictment 8 on a Newton armed robbery and claims that this 9 also benefitted the Commonwealth because it was 10 not on Nagle’s board of probation record at the 11 time of trial and thus wasn’t disclosed to the 12 jury. 13 But none of that adds up. Nagle actually testified on cross-examination 14 that he had four pending Suffolk armed robberies 15 and two pending Middlesex cases. 16 robbery and the other was an armed robbery and 17 kidnapping. 18 would be the Somerville case, and the armed 19 robbery would be the Newton case. 20 was in fact before the jury. 21 One was an armed That armed robbery and kidnapping So that case But more importantly, about the claim of a 22 delayed indictment being some sort of award for 23 Nagle, this court heard ample testimony that a 24 delayed indictment is nothing out of the ordinary, 25 especially when a defendant has cases going in 43 1 multiple counties that he plans to wrap up all at 2 once. 3 We heard from Attorney Juliar and Judge 4 Whitehead that that’s exactly what you would do. 5 You wouldn’t bring a complaint in the district 6 court and be forced to go forward on a probable 7 cause hearing just to have the cases wrap up 8 altogether. 9 defendant and to indict the case when you were You would wait to arraign the 10 ready to plea out all of his cases together. 11 Attorney Juliar also explained that she 12 doesn’t think one more armed robbery would have 13 made any sort of difference to this jury, because 14 Nagle already had a bunch of them on his record. 15 The other evidence that the defendant relies 16 on does not point to any sort of deal beyond what 17 was disclosed prior to trial and at trial. 18 the defense was aware of at trial was that 19 Spartichino did not promise anything, but said he 20 would speak on Nagle’s behalf and write a letter 21 regarding the pending Suffolk and Middlesex cases. 22 And that’s all that Spartichino did. 23 What Spartichino was involved in the Suffolk plea 24 to live up to what he said he would do. The 25 running sheets indicate that ADA Nelson was in the 44 1 loop about what was going on with Spartichino even 2 though he doesn’t recall that. 3 testimony indicates that his memory of these 4 events are unreliable. 5 that he lied under oath. 6 testimony was clearly unreliable, he was impeached 7 with his affidavit that he didn’t even remember 8 writing, and it appears that his memory of these 9 events is colored by his frustration of the fact And Nelson’s Now, we’re not alleging We’re simply saying his 10 that he made a bloated recommendation in order to 11 force a trial and that attempt was undermined, and 12 he was doing this in order to try to get a 13 promotion. 14 Now, Nelson initially testified that 15 Spartichino never told him why he wanted to talk 16 to Judge Linscott, and that Nelson only found out 17 about the reason after the fact. 18 examination, when he was confronted with his 1996 19 affidavit, he acknowledged that he was in fact 20 approached by Spartichino prior to the plea 21 hearing, and Spartichino told Nelson that he was 22 going to tell Judge Linscott that Nagle cooperated 23 on the Middlesex cases. 24 the loop on this. 25 But on cross- So Nelson was clearly in Furthermore, any evidence based on the 45 1 Linscott plea would not be newly discovered 2 evidence. 3 attorneys, Reddington and Rappaport, about the 4 Linscott plea many years ago. 5 Nelson talked to the defendant’s prior The defense has also alleged repeatedly that 6 there was an ex parte conversation between 7 Spartichino and Linscott, and now appears to be 8 claiming that, while everybody was there at 9 sidebar, Spartichino somehow cleared everybody out 10 of the way and talked to Judge Linscott. 11 the witnesses at this hearing have all been 12 adamant about is that a judge would not have an 13 ex parte conversation with a police officer during 14 a sentencing hearing. 15 Rosenthal’s running sheets make it clear that it 16 didn’t happen. 17 But what This didn’t happen. And At Bates stamp 2566, the running sheets state 18 that Spartichino went to sidebar and agreed with 19 Rosenthal’s recommendation. 20 know what had happened, he must have been there 21 during the discussion. 22 present at sidebar, and Nelson was probably there 23 too, but just doesn’t remember. 24 25 So for Rosenthal to Rosenthal was clearly The transcript of the bail hearing corroborates this. Rosenthal says in the 46 1 transcripts that he wants to approach sidebar with 2 Rosenthal and Nelson and mentions Spartichino. 3 And the bulk of the testimony about ADA Nelson 4 getting replaced, about an ex parte conversation 5 with Judge Linscott, about a promise of one-third 6 parole time, all of the testimony about that was 7 that, if true, if it happened, it would be 8 unusual. 9 these things actually happened. But that is not evidence that any of 10 The defense has also pointed to Spartichino’s 11 involvement in the Middlesex plea that resulted in 12 concurrent sentences. 13 that ADA McEvoy was told to lower his 14 recommendation, which is not unusual when you have 15 superiors who you run your recommendations by. 16 All we know about this is The defense has also argued that the fact that 17 Nagle got 7 to 12 years on five armed robberies 18 and a kidnapping is itself some sort of reward 19 that wasn’t disclosed. 20 evidence that Judge Linscott was known to be a 21 lenient judge for sentencing. 22 from Judge Whitehead that if a defendant had cases 23 in other counties, he would call to get input on 24 what a good resolution would be, even though DA 25 Droney was not a big fan of global resolutions. But we’ve heard plenty of And we’ve heard 47 1 But Judge Whitehead also indicated that even 2 though Droney was not big on global resolutions, 3 ADAs were doing it nonetheless. 4 Judge Whitehead also commented on his 5 experience as a judge, that once a defendant 6 receives a sentence in one county, as a judge, he 7 would be reluctant to exceed that sentence and 8 probably give the same sentence as a concurrent. 9 That explains why he got the concurrent 7 to 12 in 10 Middlesex. 11 not unusual that he would agree to a concurrent 12 sentence when a defendant is wrapping up cases in 13 other counties. 14 And ADA McEvoy further explained it’s Now, the defense has also claimed throughout 15 this hearing that Nagle served just over three 16 years on a 7-to-12 year sentence. 17 evidence of how Nagle’s time was computed. 18 we’ve heard that statutory good time would knock 19 off an additional one-third of his sentence. 20 But we have no And We also know from Attorney Rosenthal’s running 21 sheets that Nagle was getting some sentence 22 credit. 23 calculated, there can be no claim based on how 24 long Nagle actually served. 25 And without knowing how his sentence was The defense has also claimed that Nagle 48 1 received a reward in terms of Spartichino 2 intervening with a parole board and promising one- 3 third time. 4 is in hearsay statements of Nagle as presented in 5 Marty Rosenthal’s running sheets. 6 hearsay, and we have no way of knowing if Nagle 7 was accurately relaying what Spartichino told him 8 or what the meaning was of Spartichino and Nagle 9 statements. 10 11 But the only place that this shows up It’s totem pole And Attorney Rosenthal had no independent memory of what any of this could mean. The defense has also pointed to a letter that 12 Nagle wrote in 2006, referencing a deal that he 13 had in a murder case and a federal case, and he 14 says that this is evidence of some sort of deal 15 that wasn’t disclosed. 16 specific and it just shows that Nagle was trying 17 to finagle some sort of benefit based on his prior 18 cooperation. 19 subject of prior litigation in this case and so 20 was not properly before this court. 21 But that letter is non- In addition, that letter was the This court can also easily dismiss the 22 defendant’s claim that the lost file trial 23 contained undisclosed exculpatory evidence. 24 Commonwealth can’t find the trial file. 25 be able to, but it can’t, but there is no evidence The It should 49 1 that this was in any way purposeful as a way of 2 depriving the defendant of exculpatory evidence. 3 The evidence at this hearing has been clear that 4 that file did not contain any undisclosed 5 exculpatory evidence. 6 defendant asks for, this court would have to 7 discredit Judge Whitehead and ADA Siegel. 8 defense is based on pure speculation in the face 9 of credible evidence to the contrary, And to grant the relief the But the 10 demonstrating that any and all exculpatory 11 evidence was turned over to the defense and that 12 there was no undisclosed exculpatory evidence in 13 that trial. 14 You heard from Judge Whitehead and ADA Siegel, 15 and their testimony was that the trial file would 16 contain court filings, legal memoranda, police 17 reports, jury instruction requests and brief 18 notations of court events, and that it would be 19 possible to recreate that trial file based on 20 police reports, which we now have -- appear to 21 have all of them -- as well as court records. 22 We’ve heard testimony that anything exculpatory in 23 that file would be turned over, and any mandatory 24 discovery would have been turned over. 25 Siegel explained that the closed-out trial file, And ADA 50 1 pursuant to the DA’s office protocols, would be a 2 thin file and would contain only what was 3 necessary. 4 work product, the notes that were used to prepare 5 for witnesses’s testimonies. 6 the closed-out file would not contain the kind of 7 notes that the defense wishes it contained does 8 not support any sort of claim that the 9 Commonwealth didn’t keep proper notes. 10 It would not contain the prosecutor’s And the fact that Now, the defense has also alleged that the 11 Commonwealth prevented the defendant from having 12 full access to Nagle’s board of probation record. 13 But this court has also heard evidence that the 14 Commonwealth is not responsible for turning the 15 board of probation record over to the defense. 16 That’s up to the Probation Department. 17 Furthermore, the defense has said that ADA 18 Siegel failed to correct perjury about Nagle’s 19 prior convictions, but ADA Siegel was clear that 20 he only asked Nagle on direct examination about 21 cases that resulted in convictions, and then on 22 cross-examination everything about Nagle’s pending 23 cases came out. 24 25 This court can also dismiss the defense claim that the Commonwealth knew about Nagle’s DEA 51 1 connection and should have but did not disclose 2 it, as the evidence demonstrated that the 3 Commonwealth did not know about Nagle’s work for 4 the DEA and that any knowledge about that cannot 5 be imputed to the Commonwealth. 6 There was no duty to disclose this information 7 based on anything that Detective Oteri of the 8 Somerville Police Department knew because Oteri 9 was not part of the prosecution team. What we 10 know from the evidence is that Oteri wrote down a 11 set of phone numbers and was present for the 12 arrest of the defendant. 13 suggests. 14 write a single police report, even though other 15 Somerville police officers had done so, even when 16 their involvement ended soon after the 17 investigation began. 18 That is all the evidence Oteri wasn’t even involved enough to And under Daye and Tucceri this level of 19 involvement that the evidence shows for Oteri is 20 insufficient to make him part of the prosecution 21 team. 22 Commonwealth withheld any evidence of undisclosed 23 promises, rewards and inducements to Nagle, or 24 withheld knowledge of Nagle’s law enforcement 25 contacts or DEA connections. There is simply no evidence that the 52 1 As far as the global plea that Nagle received, 2 that was entirely in line with what Spartichino 3 said he was going to do and what was disclosed to 4 the defense. 5 promise of one-third parole time, there’s no 6 evidence that this, quote, promise was ever 7 actually made. 8 happened. 9 requires two-thirds parole eligibility. As far as the promise, alleged And frankly it could not have Nagle pled to armed robbery, which It’s 10 simply impossible for him to get one-third parole 11 eligibility on that. 12 And we have from Judge Whitehead’s testimony 13 and ADA Siegel’s testimony. Neither of them, who 14 were the prosecutors in this case, had any 15 knowledge of Nagle having any DEA connection. If 16 they have learned of any sort of DEA connection or 17 have learned that an officer involved in the case 18 had promised anything to Nagle, they would have 19 turned it over. 20 undisclosed deals with Nagle. 21 testimony from Judge Whitehead that Siegel was 22 very thorough and he had never heard of ADA Siegel 23 not turning over any exculpatory information. 24 we have testimony from Siegel characterizing his 25 own work as an ADA that he tried very hard to They had no knowledge of any And we have And 53 1 follow the rules. 2 mandatory discovery, that if he had known Nagle 3 was a DEA informant, he would have disclosed it. 4 If he had witnessed any perjury, he would have let 5 the court and the defense become aware of it. 6 that the only deal that he knew of was that after 7 the defendant’s trial Spartichino would tell 8 Suffolk of Nagle’s cooperation and that 9 Spartichino helped Nagle secure transportation to 10 get to Greenfield. ADA Siegel did not know of any 11 connection between Nagle and law enforcement 12 besides what was turned over. 13 He would have turned over any And The evidence here demonstrates that the 14 Commonwealth was fully in compliance with the 15 disclosure rules. 16 defendant’s relief based on his Brady allegations, 17 this court would have to discredit the testimony 18 of Judge Whitehead and ADA Siegel. 19 And once again, to grant the The defense has also more generally tried to 20 impeach Nagle, but has not pointed to any newly 21 discovered, particularly powerful impeachment 22 evidence that would have made a difference to the 23 jury. 24 conviction, his pending cases, the fact that he 25 had cooperated with law enforcement on his pending Nagle was impeached at trial with his prior 54 1 cases, and so any more impeachment evidence along 2 those lines would be entirely cumulative. 3 And the defendant is not entitled to a new 4 trial simply because there’s something else he 5 would have liked to ask a witness about. 6 always come up with more questions you want to ask 7 a witness about after the fact. 8 enough to get a new trial. 9 You can But that’s not And at trial, the defense also tried to 10 impeach Nagle with a newspaper article about the 11 defendant getting arraigned on a speeding ticket 12 and about Nagle’s testimony that the defendant 13 tried to recruit other inmates to discredit 14 Holmes, and the defendant actually offered 15 testimony from those other inmates that Nagle had 16 named in an attempt to contradict Nagle’s 17 testimony. 18 we don’t know how they resolved Nagle’s 19 credibility, but this additional impeachment 20 evidence that’s now proffered by the defense would 21 not change the outcome. All of this was before the jury, and 22 Excuse me. 23 (Pause.) 24 MS. KIRSHENBAUM: 25 One moment, please. It’s also important to remember and to keep in mind that there was other 55 1 strong evidence of the defendant’s guilt besides 2 Nagle’s testimony. 3 testimony had been suppressed because he had an 4 agency relationship, which the defense has not 5 shown, or if Nagle’s testimony was discredited by 6 further impeachment evidence, there’s no 7 substantial risk that the verdict would have been 8 different. 9 Thus, even if Nagle’s The jury knew that Nagle was a snitch, and 10 they heard lots of impeachment evidence, so there 11 was no substantial risk of a miscarriage of 12 justice from the exclusion of additional 13 impeachment evidence. 14 weigh the evidence before it. 15 had an eyewitness to the crime who came up with a 16 description of what happened entirely 17 independently of Nagle. 18 explanation for that is that Nagle must have 19 gotten his information from the newspaper. 20 the defendant tried to put this defense before the 21 jury and could not come up with anything to really 22 support that defense or to show that all of the 23 details that Nagle had were in the newspaper. 24 top of that, there was strong corroborating 25 testimony from Kevin Farrell and Carl DiStefano, It was up to the jury to And with Holmes, we And the defendant’s only But On 56 1 who ran the rental car place, where the defendant 2 rented the Torino, which he then traded for a 3 Chevy Malibu two days after the murder. 4 And we also have corroborating evidence from 5 the defendant’s former attorney, Ira Feinberg, 6 who, after warned about committing perjury, 7 admitted that the defendant probably did come to 8 see him on or about the night of the murder. 9 it comes down to the fact that the defendant wants So 10 to re-litigate the facts of this case and Nagle’s 11 credibility when the jury has already weighed in 12 on it. 13 There’s been lots of evidence presented at 14 this hearing, and it all clearly shows that this 15 was an investigation that followed the normal 16 protocols followed by an unremarkable prosecution. 17 Once Spartichino found a suspect in the 18 defendant, he continued collecting evidence, which 19 included learning of the defendant’s confession to 20 Nagle. 21 The evidence at this hearing supports what the 22 Commonwealth has maintained since the defendant’s 23 trial: 24 trying to get himself out of trouble, and he saw 25 an opportunity in the defendant and took advantage that Nagle was an opportunist, he was 57 1 of it. 2 Commonwealth when the defendant confessed to the 3 murder to him. 4 And that he was not an agent of the This court should find that the defense has 5 not met its burden of demonstrating that there was 6 an articulated agreement for a specific benefit 7 that was in place prior to the defendant’s 8 statements to Nagle. 9 Commonwealth fully disclosed all of the It should find that the 10 exculpatory information in its possession and that 11 could be imputed to the Commonwealth, and the 12 court should find that the defense has not put 13 forth evidence of anything new that would warrant 14 the extraordinary relief of granting a new trial. 15 The Commonwealth, therefore, respectfully asks 16 that the defendant’s motion for a new trial be 17 denied. 18 Thank you. 19 THE COURT: Thank you. 20 MS. WHITE: Very brief rebuttal, Your Honor? 21 THE COURT: Sure. 22 MS. WHITE: The Commonwealth is correct that 23 the jury is supposed to make credibility 24 assessments of witnesses. 25 case is that the evidence was hidden from the The problem in this 58 1 jury. 2 them from making an accurate assessment about 3 Nagle. 4 The evidence hidden from the jury prevented Additionally, had the fact that David Nagle 5 was approached by law enforcement involved in the 6 Rodwell prosecution prior to the time of this 7 alleged confession, his statements never even 8 would have been before the jury. 9 The Commonwealth has said time and again that 10 Mr. Rodwell is not allowed to speculate. 11 they speculate repeatedly. 12 McDermott somehow got Nagle in contact with 13 Spartichino in spite of the fact that McDermott 14 testified under oath that he never did so. 15 Yet, They speculate that They speculate that there are various reasons 16 Spartichino might have written June instead of 17 July in this letter, a mere six months after their 18 first meeting, but offered no explanation as to 19 why the court should make this assumption. 20 Additionally, this date could have been 21 explained had the attorney, Marguerite Grant, 22 disclosed that the trial file was missing in the 23 1990s. 24 could have testified exactly about what had 25 happened. Then Detective Lieutenant Spartichino 59 1 The Commonwealth speculates that Nagle was 2 confused while he was informed that his attorneys 3 were meeting with state troopers -- strike that. 4 They speculate that Nagle was confused when he 5 informed his attorneys, Keene and Silverman, that 6 state troopers approached him in Brighton when his 7 attorneys both testified unequivocally on multiple 8 occasions when Nagle made this assertion to him. 9 He was clear and appeared to be in full control of 10 his mental faculties. 11 forth no testimony that David Nagle’s memory at 12 this point was unreliable. 13 Commonwealth has still offered nothing but 14 speculation as to how Nagle made contact with 15 Spartichino when Detective William McDermott, a 16 man with no horse in this race, no interest on 17 behalf of Mr. Rodwell, has stated that it never 18 happened. 19 troopers out of Spartichino’s office and McDermott 20 didn’t put him in contact with Spartichino, then 21 how did it happen? 22 The Commonwealth has put Additionally, the If Nagle was not approached by state Finally, the Commonwealth continually urges 23 this court to assume that every single witness who 24 gives evidence helpful to Mr. Rodwell is mis- 25 remembering or mistaken, but every witness who 60 1 gives evidence helpful to the Commonwealth has a 2 flawless memory, especially those witnesses who 3 were with the DA’s office at the time of the 4 Rodwell trial, and certainly do have an interest 5 in ensuring that a conviction they helped attain 6 will stand. 7 Thank you. 8 THE COURT: 9 MS. KIRSHENBAUM: Thank you. No further response. 10 THE COURT: 11 your presentations. 12 interesting case and well and vigorously litigated 13 on both sides. 14 All right. Well, thank you for This has been a very I will proceed with my findings. As I’ve told you a couple of times, it’s my 15 goal to get a good, solid first draft done before 16 I leave this session at the end of this month. 17 Don’t panic if you don’t have it on April 4th. 18 will take me a while to polish it as well. 19 will get on it as quick as I can. 20 you’ve waited a long time. It But I I know that 21 Thank you. 22 MS. WHITE: 23 (Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the hearing ended.) 24 25 Thank you very much, Your Honor. 61 CERTIFICATION I, Paula Pietrella, Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript from the record of the court proceedings in the above-entitled matter. I, Paula Pietrella, further certify that the foregoing is in compliance with the Administrative Office of the Trial Court Directive on Transcript Format. I, Paula Pietrella, further certify that I neither am counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to this action in which this hearing was taken, and further certify that I am not financially nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the action. Paula Pietrella 3 Pemberton Square, 13th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 ppietrella@gmail.com 62 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 A aboveentitled [1] 61:5 absolutely [1] 5:20 absurd [1] 25:8 abuse [1] 18:20 acceptable [1] 15:8 access [1] 50:12 accurately [1] 48:7 accusing [1] 27:13 acknowledge d [1] 44:19 action [2] 61:13, 16 actively [1] 7:6 actual [2] 13:18; 41:7 ada [36] 1:19, 20, 21; 6:19; 11:5; 12:10; 13:18; 14:23; 15:5, 10, 11, 21; 16:5, 8, 12; 17:17, 22; 24:3; 27:3; 34:18, 23; 40:20; 43:25; 46:3, 13; 47:10; 49:7, 14, 24; 50:17, 19; 52:13, 22, 25; 53:10, 18 adamant [2] 34:11; 45:12 adas [1] 47:3 add [1] 42:5 addition [1] 48:18 additional [4] 42:5; 47:19; 54:19; 55:12 additionally [3] 58:4, 20; 59:12 adds [1] 42:12 administrati on [2] 16:8; 24:18 administrati ve [1] 61:9 admissible [1] 28:25 admitted [1] 56:7 advantage [1] 56:25 affidavit [2] 44:7, 19 afternoon [6] 4:6, 7, 13, 19, 25; 28:6 agency [9] 10:24; 12:20, 22; 21:25; 22:1; 23:3; 29:11; 40:2; 55:4 agent [14] 7:25; 10:21; 20:15; 22:16; 23:7; 28:14, 20; 29:7, 9; 33:4, 9, 11; 34:3; 57:1 agree [1] 47:11 agreement [4] 29:2, 7; 41:19; 57:6 ag’s [1] 16:7 alive [2] 16:17; 24:2 allegations [2] 33:3; 53:16 alleged [8] 22:6; 35:18; 38:3; 40:25; 45:5; 50:10; 52:4; 58:7 alleging [1] 44:4 allow [1] 23:9 allowed [5] 6:7; 19:5; 23:25; 25:6; 58:10 altogether [1] 43:8 ammonia [1] 37:19 ammunition [2] 18:18, 22 among [1] 16:23 ample [1] 42:23 appeals [1] 6:12 appear [1] 49:20 appearances [1] 1:14 appeared [1] 59:9 appears [3] 32:20; 44:8; 45:7 appellate [5] 13:11, 24; 14:21; 15:18; 16:19 applied [1] 30:15 applies [1] 21:3 apply [1] 17:6 april [6] 8:23; 9:5, 7; 30:8; 31:3; 60:17 argued [2] 38:8; 46:16 argument [2] 5:5; 28:5 arguments [2] 2:2; 5:1 arises [1] 27:6 armed [22] 6:16; 7:14, 21; 8:18, 19, 20, 21, 24; 15:16; 23:1; 31:11; 38:11, 13; 42:8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; 43:12; 46:17; 52:8 arraign [1] 43:8 arraigned [1] 54:11 arrange [1] 32:8 arrest [9] 5:11; 6:19, 21; 7:8; 14:4; 30:16; 33:18, 21; 51:12 arrested [12] 5:8; 6:16, 22; 7:12, 15; 8:19, 23; 22:9; 23:5; 30:17; 31:3; 35:21 arrived [1] 31:5 article [1] 54:10 articulated [2] 29:2; 57:6 aside [1] 21:22 assertion [1] 59:8 assessment [1] 58:2 assessments [1] 57:24 assigned [1] 40:21 assistant [1] 4:17 63 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 assisted [1] 39:1 associated [1] 5:21 associates [2] 1:23; 27:25 assume [1] 59:23 assumption [1] 58:19 assurances [1] 11:2 assured [1] 12:17 attain [1] 60:5 attempt [2] 44:11; 54:16 attempted [1] 13:20 attentive [1] 31:17 attorney [28] 4:18; 9:21, 25; 11:5, 18; 12:1; 15:23, 25; 26:1, 20; 33:6; 34:11; 35:17, 17; 36:5; 37:20, 22; 38:6, 25; 39:13, 16, 17; 43:3, 11; 47:20; 48:9; 56:5; 58:21 attorneyclient [1] 9:22 attorney’s [5] 1:16; 19:16; 22:23; 23:6; 27:20 attorneys [8] 10:16; 16:4, 9; 37:14; 45:3; 59:2, 5, 7 authorities [6] 10:3; 26:4, 5, 7; 27:2; 38:7 avail [1] 24:18 avenue [1] 1:15 award [1] 42:22 aware [4] 31:19; 40:21; 43:18; 53:5 B background [1] 18:12 bail [4] 9:1; 38:24; 39:25; 45:24 banks [1] 19:19 bargain [2] 21:20, 24 bates [2] 36:6; 45:17 bauer [4] 1:28; 4:23, 23; 27:25 beacon [1] 1:11 became [1] 31:19 becomes [1] 9:9 behalf [15] 2:3, 4; 4:20, 21, 23; 5:5; 10:23; 12:18; 13:24; 28:5; 32:7, 17; 41:21; 43:20; 59:17 believed [1] 38:20 belmont [2] 25:21; 38:14 ben [2] 4:21; 27:25 bender [4] 1:19; 4:17, 17; 24:3 benefit [5] 18:9; 21:18; 29:3; 48:17; 57:6 benefitted [1] 42:9 benjamin [1] 1:27 bias [2] 17:22; 27:6 biased [1] 27:4 big [2] 46:25; 47:2 billerica [14] 5:16; 9:2, 4, 6, 16; 11:3, 11, 14, 15; 26:15; 28:21; 30:18; 31:4; 32:9 billings [1] 1:13 birthday [1] 36:7 blind-sided [1] 18:19 bloated [1] 44:10 board [5] 14:2; 42:10; 48:2; 50:12, 15 body [1] 29:23 bold-face [1] 13:5 booked [1] 8:20 boston [8] 1:25; 25:19; 31:9; 36:10, 15; 37:8; 38:10; 61:19 brady [2] 22:2; 53:16 bright [1] 26:2 brighton [5] 10:1, 4, 21; 31:7; 59:6 bringing [1] 19:20 brookline [1] 32:2 brother [2] 16:21; 23:13 brought [1] 11:14 bulk [1] 46:3 bully [2] 36:25; 37:3 bunch [1] 43:14 burden [2] 29:5; 57:5 bus [1] 17:7 C calculated [1] 47:23 call [3] 16:16, 16; 46:23 called [1] 35:2 cambridge [2] 25:21; 38:14 capital [2] 15:24; 16:13 captain [1] 5:9 car [1] 56:1 career [1] 15:7 carl [1] 55:25 cases [32] 14:16; 15:2, 24; 22:2; 26:13; 27:10; 32:8, 18; 36:23; 38:21; 39:1, 3, 4, 6, 11; 40:6, 7, 15, 21; 41:21; 42:15, 25; 43:7, 10, 21; 64 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 44:23; 46:22; 47:12; 50:21, 23; 53:24; 54:1 caused [2] 37:18, 19 certainly [2] 16:3; 60:4 certification [1] 61:1 certify [4] 61:3, 7, 11, 14 change [1] 54:21 characterizi ng [1] 52:24 charge [1] 16:22 charged [1] 8:21 charges [2] 9:3; 31:14 charlestown [1] 41:8 chase [2] 16:20; 23:12 chevy [1] 56:3 circuit [1] 21:16 circumstanc es [1] 35:4 circumvente d [1] 23:7 city [1] 15:20 claim [8] 34:15, 16; 38:19; 42:21; 47:23; 48:22; 50:8, 24 claimed [4] 39:13; 40:2; 47:14, 25 claiming [1] 45:8 claims [4] 29:13; 38:15; 41:16; 42:8 clear [9] 10:17; 14:11; 22:19; 39:10; 41:13; 45:15; 49:3; 50:19; 59:9 cleared [1] 45:9 clearly [5] 29:6; 44:6, 23; 45:21; 56:14 client [2] 19:3; 26:19 closed-out [2] 49:25; 50:6 closely [1] 39:19 closing [4] 2:2; 4:25; 5:5; 28:5 coached [1] 20:2 coconspirator [2] 5:13; 9:10 co-defendant [1] 30:9 codefendants [1] 31:10 cold [1] 30:8 collecting [1] 56:18 colored [1] 44:9 commented [1] 47:4 committed [1] 8:18 committing [1] 56:6 competence [1] 9:22 complaint [1] 43:5 complete [4] 13:5, 5; 14:5; 25:10 completely [1] 18:19 compliance [2] 53:14; 61:8 computed [1] 47:17 concentrate [1] 37:24 concerned [1] 35:7 concerning [1] 21:20 concurrent [7] 15:16; 32:19; 42:1; 46:12; 47:8, 9, 11 condition [2] 37:18, 21 confessed [6] 5:15; 28:15, 21; 30:10; 33:4; 57:2 confession [10] 22:6; 23:8; 29:4; 31:23; 33:12; 34:5; 35:12; 37:4; 56:19; 58:7 confidence [1] 26:19 conflating [2] 36:13; 37:6 confronted [2] 33:5; 44:18 confused [5] 36:3, 4; 37:19; 59:2, 4 confuses [1] 36:7 conjunction [1] 8:10 connection [5] 41:8; 51:1; 52:15, 16; 53:11 connections [1] 51:25 consider [1] 22:4 consideratio n [1] 22:13 consistent [2] 8:6, 8 conspirator [1] 9:15 constitution [5] 17:4, 5, 6; 24:11; 25:2 constitutiona l [2] 19:1, 10 contact [18] 5:21, 24; 6:1; 12:23; 32:1; 34:6, 12, 15, 19; 35:1; 39:23, 24, 25; 41:7, 13; 58:12; 59:14, 20 contacted [1] 31:25 contacts [1] 51:25 contain [6] 29:16; 49:4, 16; 50:2, 3, 6 contained [2] 48:23; 50:7 containing [1] 29:2 contains [1] 40:11 contemporan eous [1] 25:11 continually [1] 59:22 continued [5] 7:4, 23; 11:9; 20:23; 56:18 contradict [2] 33:25; 54:16 65 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 contrary [2] 27:5; 49:9 control [3] 17:9; 18:5; 59:9 conveniently [2] 6:19; 11:12 conversation [4] 24:14; 45:6, 13; 46:4 conversation s [6] 5:18; 25:12; 29:8, 10; 31:22; 33:24 convict [1] 9:13 convicted [3] 5:12; 18:22; 19:13 conviction [3] 21:23; 53:24; 60:5 convictions [2] 50:19, 21 cooperated [2] 44:22; 53:25 cooperating [4] 38:22; 39:2, 6, 11 cooperation [10] 7:23; 12:21; 14:16; 22:4, 12; 34:24; 39:7; 41:23; 48:18; 53:8 corrected [1] 19:8 correction [6] 5:17; 9:4; 28:22; 30:19; 31:4; 32:10 corrections [4] 9:2, 6, 17; 11:15 corroborates [1] 45:25 corroboratin g [2] 55:24; 56:4 corroboratio n [2] 9:13; 21:14 counties [7] 14:15, 17; 15:17; 31:14; 43:1; 46:23; 47:13 counts [1] 22:11 county [9] 8:25; 17:8, 9; 18:10, 11; 31:11, 12; 38:12; 47:6 couple [1] 60:14 course [1] 42:6 courtroom [1] 1:30 courts [4] 13:11; 14:21; 15:18; 16:19 cpac [2] 30:1, 3 create [1] 23:10 created [6] 10:24; 12:19, 22; 22:5; 23:3; 40:3 creates [2] 7:25; 22:5 credibility [3] 54:19; 56:11; 57:23 credible [2] 34:5; 49:9 credit [1] 47:22 crime [2] 30:22; 55:15 crimes [2] 26:10; 40:13 cross [1] 44:17 crossexamination [3] 39:17; 42:13; 50:22 crossreference [1] 39:18 culminated [1] 32:19 cumulative [1] 54:2 current [1] 33:6 custody [1] 8:25 D da’s [13] 11:20; 13:16, 17; 17:8, 10; 18:10, 11; 19:15; 24:8, 8; 26:22; 50:1; 60:3 dated [3] 12:9, 23; 40:4 datestamped [1] 9:23 daughter’s [1] 36:7 david [63] 5:14, 18, 20, 23; 6:4, 7, 12, 16, 20, 21, 25; 7:1, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22; 8:13, 23; 9:19, 20; 10:12, 16, 18; 11:1, 10; 12:2; 13:7, 14, 23; 14:24; 15:2, 6, 15, 19; 16:17, 20, 20; 17:10, 12; 18:9; 19:7, 17; 20:11, 15; 21:10, 13; 22:8, 9, 16, 20, 24; 23:12, 13; 24:1, 13, 15; 25:20; 26:21; 28:7; 30:21; 58:4; 59:11 daye [1] 51:18 dea [33] 6:13, 15, 18, 22, 25; 7:3, 4, 7, 16, 18; 8:2, 3, 15; 10:21; 14:7, 14; 15:20; 22:20; 29:9, 18; 30:24, 25; 33:11, 13, 15, 22; 40:4; 50:25; 51:4, 25; 52:15, 16; 53:3 deactivated [2] 30:25; 33:15 deactivation [2] 7:10; 33:20 dead [2] 16:18; 29:23 deal [16] 7:21; 10:1; 11:19; 13:15, 20; 15:4; 17:23; 26:2, 20, 23, 25; 27:1; 43:16; 48:12, 14; 53:6 dealer [1] 6:17 deals [3] 7:23; 23:2; 52:20 death [1] 9:20 december [3] 5:10; 8:4; 29:22 66 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 decide [2] 25:5; 28:18 decided [2] 13:12; 14:22 defaulted [2] 7:6; 8:14 defendant’s [29] 28:16; 29:13; 31:20, 21; 32:12, 14, 14; 33:2, 6, 8, 12, 18, 21; 34:4, 7; 39:12, 21; 41:16; 45:2; 48:22; 53:7, 16; 55:1, 17; 56:5, 19, 22; 57:7, 16 defense [41] 20:22; 21:1; 32:11; 33:3, 17; 34:17; 35:9; 38:5, 15, 23; 39:13; 40:2, 25; 41:4, 4; 42:4, 7; 43:18; 45:5; 46:10, 16; 47:14, 25; 48:11; 49:8, 11; 50:7, 10, 15, 17, 24; 52:4; 53:5, 19; 54:9, 20; 55:4, 20, 22; 57:4, 12 defined [2] 29:11; 41:19 definitive [1] 34:25 delayed [3] 42:7, 22, 24 delineate [1] 34:25 demand [2] 24:5, 12 demands [2] 24:11; 25:3 demonstrate d [1] 51:2 demonstrate s [2] 41:18; 53:13 demonstrati ng [2] 49:10; 57:5 denied [2] 21:8; 57:17 department [6] 1:4; 29:22; 32:2; 36:10; 50:16; 51:8 departments [1] 30:4 depriving [1] 49:2 description [1] 55:16 deserved [1] 24:12 despite [7] 9:3; 13:1; 14:19; 15:24; 19:5; 20:15; 28:16 destroy [1] 25:7 destroyed [2] 18:16; 24:15 destroying [1] 24:23 detail [2] 35:7; 40:18 details [3] 36:4; 41:12; 55:23 detective [29] 5:24, 25; 6:2, 3; 7:12, 17, 20; 8:1, 9; 12:6, 10, 16; 13:3, 6, 8, 13, 25; 14:25; 15:1, 9; 16:17; 17:7; 26:14; 30:1, 5, 15; 51:7; 58:23; 59:15 detectives [1] 30:3 deteriorated [1] 37:22 determine [1] 40:23 diane [3] 10:9; 11:17; 34:9 dictating [1] 24:4 didn’t [20] 15:11, 12; 16:1, 1, 3, 10; 17:6, 23; 20:12; 27:7, 8; 29:15, 17; 35:6; 39:24; 44:7; 45:14, 16; 50:9; 59:20 difference [5] 21:6, 11, 15; 43:13; 53:22 different [2] 31:14; 55:8 differently [1] 21:21 difficult [1] 37:24 direct [2] 6:20; 50:20 directive [1] 61:9 disclose [4] 19:23, 25; 51:1, 6 disclosed [13] 14:7; 22:2; 23:23; 29:18; 32:10; 42:11; 43:17; 46:19; 48:15; 52:3; 53:3; 57:9; 58:22 disclosure [2] 6:10; 53:15 discovered [2] 45:1; 53:21 discovery [2] 49:24; 53:2 discredit [3] 49:7; 53:17; 54:13 discredited [1] 55:5 discussion [1] 45:21 disease [1] 37:18 disinfectant [1] 6:10 dismiss [3] 7:21; 48:21; 50:24 dismissed [7] 23:1, 1; 29:14; 40:6, 16, 17; 41:17 distefano [1] 55:25 district [10] 1:16; 4:17; 6:24; 8:14; 21:18; 22:23; 23:6; 27:19; 31:8; 43:5 disturbing [1] 18:20 docket [2] 1:6; 4:9 document [3] 26:25; 40:4, 11 documentary [1] 24:23 documents [2] 33:15; 39:5 doesn’t [17] 15:23; 20:14; 24:18, 21; 25:5; 33:19; 67 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 36:20, 21, 24; 38:3; 39:7; 40:18, 22; 42:5; 43:12; 44:2; 45:23 draft [1] 60:15 dretke [1] 19:19 driving [1] 17:7 droney [3] 24:17; 46:25; 47:2 due [1] 20:23 dust [1] 6:17 duty [2] 19:10; 51:6 E early [4] 9:17; 30:23; 33:13, 14 earth [2] 13:14; 22:15 easily [3] 29:13; 41:16; 48:21 efforts [1] 28:16 elaborate [1] 21:19 elements [1] 37:12 elicit [1] 23:8 eligibility [4] 32:21; 42:3; 52:9, 11 employed [1] 61:12 encouraged [1] 41:6 ended [3] 41:25; 51:16; 60:23 end-stage [1] 37:17 enforcement [11] 20:2; 28:11; 30:10, 23; 31:15, 25; 34:7; 51:24; 53:11, 25; 58:5 engaged [1] 30:21 enough [7] 13:19; 18:16; 26:16; 40:18, 22; 51:13; 54:8 ensure [1] 13:14 ensuring [1] 60:5 entered [1] 29:1 entirely [3] 52:2; 54:2; 55:16 entitled [1] 54:3 error [2] 21:2, 5 escape [1] 37:10 especially [2] 42:25; 60:2 esq [3] 1:26, 27, 28 essentially [1] 21:8 euphemism [1] 24:23 events [3] 44:4, 9; 49:18 everybody [2] 45:8, 9 everything [2] 21:25; 50:22 evidence [81] 17:1, 3; 18:15, 24; 19:11, 12; 20:16, 18; 21:4, 6, 14; 22:14, 15, 15, 19; 23:11; 24:20, 24; 25:7, 13, 15; 26:12; 27:15, 18, 21; 28:25; 29:6, 16, 19; 33:10, 25; 34:2, 5, 14, 20; 38:2; 39:9, 10; 41:15, 18; 43:15; 44:25; 45:2; 46:8, 20; 47:17; 48:14, 23, 25; 49:2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12; 50:13; 51:2, 10, 12, 19, 21, 22; 52:6; 53:13, 22; 54:1, 20; 55:1, 6, 10, 13, 14; 56:4, 13, 18, 21; 57:13, 25; 58:1; 59:24; 60:1 evident [1] 36:5 evidentiary [1] 20:12 evince [1] 40:17 evinces [1] 40:13 exact [1] 10:9 examination [3] 6:20; 44:18; 50:20 examine [1] 20:21 examined [1] 35:3 example [3] 35:5; 36:3, 9 exceed [1] 47:7 exchange [2] 7:22; 11:2 exclusion [1] 55:12 exclusively [1] 5:12 exculpatory [13] 21:14; 25:13, 14; 27:18; 29:16; 48:23; 49:2, 5, 10, 12, 22; 52:23; 57:10 exhibits [2] 1:2; 3:1 existed [1] 29:7 existence [1] 17:4 experience [2] 17:10; 47:5 expert [2] 8:5, 7 explained [6] 37:20; 39:23; 43:11; 47:10; 49:25; 58:21 explains [1] 47:9 explanation [2] 55:18; 58:18 extraordinar y [1] 57:14 extremely [1] 40:19 eyewitness [1] 55:15 F face [3] 33:5, 5; 49:8 facing [3] 9:3; 14:3; 31:13 facts [3] 21:19; 37:25; 56:10 factual [1] 16:23 faculties [1] 59:10 68 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 failed [4] 6:6; 29:5; 41:1; 50:18 falls [1] 38:19 false [2] 6:6; 31:21 familiar [1] 6:9 fan [1] 46:25 farrell [1] 55:25 fate [2] 13:12; 14:22 faustian [2] 21:20, 24 favorable [4] 19:11, 11; 20:20, 23 feared [1] 8:15 february [3] 6:15; 13:23; 14:8 federal [4] 10:19, 20; 22:10; 48:13 feinberg [1] 56:5 fell [1] 21:12 felony [1] 27:12 few [2] 20:6; 37:6 fighting [1] 18:23 file [21] 16:13; 17:16; 18:17; 23:19; 24:10, 17, 21; 25:5, 6, 10; 29:15; 48:22, 24; 49:4, 15, 19, 23, 25; 50:2, 6; 58:22 file-keeping [1] 24:16 files [11] 15:22; 16:6, 8, 10, 11; 24:4, 18, 22, 22; 25:1, 16 filings [2] 23:23; 49:16 finagle [1] 48:17 financially [1] 61:15 find [5] 28:8; 48:24; 57:4, 8, 12 findings [1] 60:13 finished [1] 14:13 flag [1] 20:3 flanagan [1] 13:16 flat [1] 38:19 flawless [1] 60:2 floor [1] 61:3 follow [2] 39:7; 53:1 followed [2] 56:15, 16 follows [1] 35:23 force [1] 44:11 forced [1] 43:6 foregoing [2] 61:3, 8 forensic [1] 21:13 format [1] 61:10 former [1] 56:5 forth [3] 26:11; 57:13; 59:11 forward [1] 43:6 found [2] 44:16; 56:17 four [4] 10:17; 16:25; 33:17; 42:14 francis [2] 5:13; 30:9 frankie [5] 9:5, 7, 9, 12, 18 frankly [1] 52:7 freedom [2] 18:24; 25:3 friend [2] 13:3; 32:1 frustration [1] 44:9 full [5] 14:4; 23:21; 32:20; 50:12; 59:9 fully [2] 53:14; 57:9 furnish [1] 20:22 further [6] 47:10; 55:6; 60:9; 61:7, 11, 14 furthermore [2] 44:25; 50:17 G gathered [1] 17:1 generally [1] 53:19 general’s [2] 15:23, 25 given [14] 6:7; 9:1, 10; 11:19; 14:9; 18:18; 21:3; 26:10; 27:22; 28:9; 29:15; 35:7; 39:18; 41:18 gives [2] 59:24; 60:1 giving [6] 13:19; 15:5; 23:14; 25:24; 31:8; 39:3 global [3] 46:25; 47:2; 52:1 goal [1] 60:15 goes [1] 24:9 gone [1] 24:20 gotten [1] 55:19 government [16] 7:25; 10:20, 21; 12:20; 14:6, 18; 20:15; 21:25; 22:11, 16; 23:8; 28:14, 20; 29:7; 33:8; 34:4 government’ s [1] 21:12 grant [7] 16:5, 8, 12; 23:23; 49:5; 53:15; 58:21 granting [1] 57:14 greasing [1] 18:12 greenfield [4] 10:5; 11:13; 32:9; 53:10 guess [1] 35:18 guidelines [2] 32:22; 42:3 guilt [1] 55:1 H habeas [1] 21:22 half [2] 11:10; 17:13 handler [2] 7:16, 18 69 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 handwriting [5] 8:5, 6, 7, 7, 8 hang [1] 25:17 hard [2] 23:16; 52:25 harmless [2] 21:2, 5 hat [1] 25:18 having [3] 31:5; 50:11; 52:15 headquarter s [2] 6:18, 23 health [1] 37:23 hearing [28] 1:12; 11:2, 23; 18:2; 20:13; 28:16, 17, 19; 33:10; 34:2, 5; 38:24; 39:15, 21; 40:1; 41:2, 15; 43:7; 44:21; 45:11, 14, 24; 47:15; 49:3; 56:14, 21; 60:23; 61:14 hearings [1] 39:5 hearsay [5] 40:4, 9, 10; 48:4, 6 heart [1] 36:8 heaven [2] 13:13; 22:15 held [1] 8:17 help [4] 31:15, 16, 17; 38:7 helped [9] 7:13; 10:2, 15; 26:3, 5, 6; 32:8; 53:9; 60:5 helpful [3] 41:3; 59:24; 60:1 helping [1] 15:2 hereby [1] 61:3 here’s [1] 17:16 hey [1] 17:12 hidden [3] 18:11; 57:25; 58:1 high [1] 37:18 higher [2] 15:7; 16:2 highjacked [1] 18:8 highlighting [1] 27:1 himself [7] 28:8, 9; 31:3, 9, 18, 19; 56:24 history [1] 15:6 hold [1] 11:22 holmes [16] 5:13; 9:5, 7, 9, 12, 18; 30:9, 13; 31:7, 20; 35:15, 21, 23, 25; 54:14; 55:14 home [1] 37:11 honorable [1] 1:13 horse [1] 59:16 house [10] 5:16; 9:2, 4, 6, 17; 11:15; 28:22; 30:19; 31:4; 32:9 housed [3] 5:16; 30:18; 31:4 however [1] 14:12 huge [1] 15:24 hundred [1] 16:24 hurry [1] 35:5 I identify [3] 4:11; 8:5, 7 ignores [1] 41:4 immunity [2] 9:10; 35:21 immunized [1] 5:13 impeach [2] 53:20; 54:10 impeached [2] 44:6; 53:23 impeachmen t [6] 53:21; 54:1, 19; 55:6, 10, 13 implicated [1] 30:11 implicating [1] 31:9 important [4] 7:20; 12:7; 24:20; 54:24 importantly [2] 28:13; 42:21 impossible [1] 52:10 impunity [1] 6:9 imputed [3] 22:22; 51:5; 57:11 inaccuracies [1] 40:12 included [3] 25:11; 36:16; 56:19 including [2] 13:16; 37:7 incriminatin g [1] 23:11 incriminator y [1] 32:14 indeed [1] 20:5 indef [2] 10:1; 26:2 independent [1] 48:10 independentl y [1] 55:17 index [1] 1:2 indicate [3] 32:6; 33:16; 43:25 indicated [1] 47:1 indicates [1] 44:3 indicating [1] 26:22 indict [1] 43:9 indictment [3] 42:7, 22, 24 individuals [1] 31:10 inducement [1] 22:11 inducements [6] 14:6, 9, 19; 19:4; 21:9; 51:23 infer [2] 37:5; 38:1 inform [1] 14:14 informant [9] 6:13; 8:3; 19:24; 20:4; 22:21; 31:1; 33:13, 23; 53:3 70 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 informants [1] 23:9 information [24] 8:1; 10:16; 11:19; 12:1; 20:20, 22, 25; 23:2, 15; 25:20, 23; 26:10, 17; 28:11, 13; 32:3, 6; 39:3; 40:22; 41:11; 51:6; 52:23; 55:19; 57:10 informed [6] 16:7, 9, 12; 19:18; 59:2, 5 initially [1] 44:14 initiated [1] 40:7 inmates [2] 54:13, 15 input [1] 46:23 instances [2] 37:7, 8 instruction [1] 49:17 insufficient [1] 51:20 intensely [1] 20:1 interest [2] 59:16; 60:4 interested [1] 61:15 interesting [2] 19:19; 60:12 international [1] 26:24 intervened [1] 13:22 intervening [2] 13:15; 48:2 intervention [3] 14:1, 20; 22:14 interview [4] 25:18, 22; 34:11; 36:5 investigate [1] 23:19 investigated [1] 8:4 investigation [8] 8:10; 17:2; 22:18, 22; 29:20, 25; 51:17; 56:15 investigators [1] 25:12 involved [7] 22:17; 28:10; 37:10; 43:23; 51:13; 52:17; 58:5 involvement [6] 8:16; 31:24; 32:15; 46:11; 51:16, 19 involves [1] 35:15 ira [1] 56:5 isn’t [3] 11:6; 24:5, 25 issue [1] 21:25 issued [1] 7:8 issues [2] 26:24; 37:23 its [4] 20:21; 40:13; 57:5, 10 J jail [1] 9:2 jailhouse [1] 23:9 james [22] 1:10; 4:9, 20; 5:14; 6:5; 7:12; 10:8; 12:5; 13:12; 14:2, 22; 15:21; 16:3; 17:15; 18:15, 17; 20:10; 23:5, 19, 24; 26:9; 27:16 jammed [1] 16:22 january [5] 8:13; 12:9, 23, 24; 34:17 jeffrey [1] 6:17 jimmy [14] 5:7, 11; 9:8, 13; 10:10; 11:14, 16; 12:25; 13:10; 17:5; 19:13; 23:25; 24:12; 25:2 job [1] 16:12 john [1] 24:17 juliar [10] 10:9; 11:17; 12:2; 34:9; 38:6, 25; 39:14, 17; 43:3, 11 juliar’s [1] 39:16 july [8] 5:22, 25; 11:11; 12:17; 22:13; 34:8; 40:1; 58:17 june [12] 5:19; 7:7; 11:17, 23; 12:6, 24; 22:13; 34:19; 38:23; 39:14, 20; 58:16 justice [3] 18:8, 13; 55:12 justifies [1] 17:24 K kate [2] 1:21; 4:13 keene [5] 35:17; 37:15, 20, 23; 59:5 keep [5] 24:22; 25:4, 16; 50:9; 54:25 keeping [1] 32:16 kept [2] 24:4, 17 kevin [1] 55:25 key [2] 16:18; 22:2 kidnapping [4] 15:17; 42:17, 17; 46:18 kill [2] 35:23, 25 kirshenbaum [6] 1:20; 4:15, 15; 28:6; 54:24; 60:9 kleimola [3] 1:21; 4:13, 13 knew [10] 8:1, 2; 13:25; 20:17, 17; 22:20; 50:25; 51:8; 53:6; 55:9 knock [1] 47:18 knowing [2] 47:22; 48:6 knowledge [6] 22:22, 24; 51:4, 24; 52:15, 19 known [5] 20:9; 32:11; 41:24; 46:20; 53:2 knows [2] 12:2; 20:25 kyles [1] 19:9 71 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 L laid [1] 12:8 later [5] 6:23; 7:9, 15; 9:10; 41:10 latest [1] 15:19 laundry [2] 14:19; 20:16 laura [2] 1:20; 4:15 law [12] 20:2; 28:11; 30:10, 22, 23; 31:15, 25; 34:7; 51:24; 53:11, 25; 58:5 learn [3] 16:11; 19:10, 12 learned [11] 6:12; 7:11; 10:10; 11:16; 12:5, 25; 14:22; 15:18; 16:20; 52:16, 17 learning [1] 56:19 least [1] 13:15 leatherman [4] 1:27; 4:21, 21; 27:25 leave [1] 60:16 legal [2] 31:1; 49:16 lenient [2] 41:24; 46:21 less [1] 17:10 letter [25] 9:21, 23; 12:8, 9, 11, 12, 22; 25:25; 26:5, 17, 18, 21; 34:18, 22; 35:5, 6, 8; 38:6, 15, 20; 43:20; 48:11, 15, 18; 58:17 letting [1] 34:23 level [1] 51:18 levels [1] 37:19 lie [2] 13:5, 5 lied [1] 44:5 lieutenant [21] 5:24; 6:2, 3; 12:6, 10, 16; 13:8, 13, 25; 14:10, 12, 13, 25; 15:1, 9; 16:17; 26:14; 30:2, 5, 15; 58:23 life [4] 18:22; 28:12; 35:10; 38:4 lifestyle [1] 28:10 light [1] 32:21 liked [2] 36:23; 54:5 likely [3] 31:1, 13; 36:13 line [3] 34:25; 36:20; 52:2 lines [1] 54:2 linscott [14] 13:23; 17:19; 18:6; 27:5; 41:23, 24; 44:16, 22; 45:1, 4, 7, 10; 46:5, 20 list [2] 14:19; 20:16 litigated [1] 60:12 litigation [1] 48:19 little [1] 10:25 live [1] 43:24 liver [1] 37:17 lobbied [1] 23:16 lobbyist [1] 9:11 local [3] 22:19; 30:4, 22 locate [1] 16:6 lockup [1] 10:22 logs [1] 25:11 looking [1] 17:3 loop [2] 44:1, 24 lost [2] 29:15; 48:22 lots [2] 55:10; 56:13 louis [2] 5:8; 9:9 lower [5] 15:11, 12; 17:10; 18:10; 46:13 low-level [3] 7:23; 23:2; 40:7 lying [1] 17:25 M made [28] 5:24; 10:1; 12:19, 24; 14:4, 11; 19:3; 20:12; 21:3, 6, 10, 10, 15; 26:2, 20, 22; 27:2; 32:5, 11; 35:10; 38:10; 40:15; 43:13; 44:10; 52:7; 53:22; 59:8, 14 magistrate [1] 6:24 main [1] 16:23 maintain [1] 25:10 maintained [3] 14:18; 33:1; 56:22 making [4] 37:16, 23; 40:23; 58:2 malibu [1] 56:3 man [2] 14:7; 59:16 mandatory [2] 49:23; 53:2 manifested [1] 18:20 manipulator [1] 23:13 manslaughte r [1] 27:10 march [1] 1:31 marguerite [2] 23:23; 58:21 marty [3] 11:5; 18:2; 48:5 mask [1] 6:9 massachuset ts [6] 1:3, 8, 18, 25, 29; 61:19 material [5] 20:21; 21:1, 7, 11; 24:23 materialize [2] 26:17, 18 matter [5] 4:8; 14:16; 72 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 24:21; 33:19; 61:6 matters [2] 11:21; 33:21 maurad [2] 19:17; 37:9 max [3] 1:28; 4:23; 27:25 mcdermott [10] 6:1; 13:3, 6; 32:2, 3; 41:9; 58:12, 13; 59:15, 19 mcdermott’s [3] 41:2, 3, 6 mcevoy [7] 14:23; 15:5, 7, 11, 14; 46:13; 47:10 meaning [1] 48:8 meanwhile [1] 30:21 meet [2] 7:15; 29:5 meeting [6] 9:12; 35:18; 36:14; 37:7; 58:18; 59:3 meets [1] 7:17 memoranda [1] 49:16 memory [5] 44:3, 8; 48:10; 59:11; 60:2 mental [1] 59:10 mentioned [3] 36:17, 19; 40:9 mentions [1] 46:2 mere [2] 33:17; 58:17 met [5] 12:7, 13, 17; 36:14; 57:5 meticulous [1] 27:23 mid [1] 33:14 middlesex [40] 1:4, 16; 9:2; 10:2, 3; 11:7, 21; 14:15, 23; 15:10, 17; 17:8; 18:10; 19:15; 20:13, 14; 22:23; 23:6; 25:21; 26:3, 3, 5, 6, 11, 22; 27:19; 30:1; 31:12; 32:18; 36:11; 38:7, 12; 39:1, 11; 42:1, 15; 43:21; 44:23; 46:11; 47:10 mind [2] 36:13; 54:25 minimize [1] 28:9 minor [1] 35:7 miranda [1] 23:7 mis [2] 38:1; 59:24 miscarriage [1] 55:11 misrememberin g [1] 36:3 missing [8] 15:22, 25; 16:10, 11, 14; 23:20, 24; 58:22 mistake [1] 34:21 mistaken [1] 59:25 moment [1] 54:22 month [4] 11:9; 17:13; 39:25; 60:16 months [4] 5:10; 14:3; 34:22; 58:17 most [6] 21:16; 30:2, 6; 31:25; 37:25; 41:4 motion [4] 1:12; 28:23, 25; 57:16 mountains [1] 27:17 move [1] 18:14 moved [3] 13:13; 18:5; 27:12 moving [1] 22:15 multiple [2] 43:1; 59:7 murder [26] 5:8, 15, 22; 8:4, 11; 17:11, 14; 22:18, 22; 26:23; 28:15, 21; 29:21; 30:11; 31:20, 24; 32:16; 33:5; 35:15; 41:8, 14, 14; 48:13; 56:3, 8; 57:3 murdered [2] 5:9; 9:8 murphy [2] 22:3; 29:12 N nagle [172] 5:14, 18, 20, 23; 6:1, 7, 12, 16, 20, 21, 25; 7:1, 6, 14, 21; 8:2, 13, 17, 23; 9:19, 21; 10:7, 12, 16, 19; 11:1, 10, 18; 12:2, 7, 13, 15; 13:1, 8, 14, 19; 14:1, 10, 11, 16, 24; 15:3, 15, 19; 16:17, 20; 18:9; 19:7, 17; 20:11; 21:10, 13, 20; 22:8, 9, 13, 16, 20, 24; 23:13; 24:1, 15; 25:18, 20, 25; 26:7, 9, 12, 21; 28:7, 14, 19; 29:1, 3, 6, 9, 15; 30:21, 24; 31:3, 7, 13, 19, 23, 25; 32:5, 8, 13, 19, 24; 33:11, 13, 22; 34:3, 6, 10, 10, 19, 25; 35:10, 13, 25; 36:2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 25; 37:6, 16, 21, 22; 38:1, 6, 9, 17, 18, 20; 39:1, 2, 6, 10; 40:24; 41:7, 13, 18, 19, 24, 25; 42:13, 23; 43:14; 44:22; 46:17; 47:15, 21, 24, 25; 48:4, 6, 8, 12, 16; 50:20; 51:23; 52:1, 8, 15, 18, 20; 53:2, 9, 11, 20, 23; 54:10, 15; 55:9, 17, 18, 23; 56:20, 23; 57:8; 58:3, 4, 12; 73 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 59:1, 4, 8, 14, 18 nagle’s [44] 7:16, 17, 22; 11:5, 17; 13:23; 14:15; 15:6; 20:15; 28:10, 12, 17; 29:8, 17; 32:6, 7, 17, 17; 34:24; 37:10; 38:4; 40:6, 12, 15; 41:21, 23; 42:10; 43:20; 47:17; 50:12, 18, 22, 25; 51:3, 24; 53:8; 54:12, 16, 18; 55:2, 2, 5; 56:10; 59:11 named [1] 54:16 namely [2] 29:14; 32:4 narrative [1] 28:12 near [1] 38:4 necessary [1] 50:3 needed [1] 9:12 neither [2] 52:13; 61:12 nelson [18] 11:5; 12:10; 13:19; 15:6; 17:17, 22; 27:4; 34:18, 23; 43:25; 44:14, 16, 21, 23; 45:2, 22; 46:2, 3 nelson’s [2] 27:9; 44:2 new [10] 15:20; 19:2, 16; 21:7; 28:23; 54:3, 8; 57:13, 14, 16 newly [2] 45:1; 53:20 news [2] 9:25; 26:1 newspaper [3] 54:10; 55:19, 23 newton [5] 8:18; 25:22; 38:14; 42:8, 19 night [1] 56:8 non [1] 48:15 none [2] 3:3; 42:12 nonetheless [1] 47:3 nor [4] 19:24; 29:10; 61:12, 15 normal [2] 42:6; 56:15 notations [1] 49:18 note [2] 8:8, 9 notes [9] 24:14, 15; 25:11, 11, 15; 39:24; 50:4, 7, 9 notice [1] 20:19 notified [1] 29:23 november [1] 15:19 nullity [1] 17:6 number [4] 3:2; 15:22; 31:10, 14 numbers [1] 51:11 O oath [6] 17:25; 24:13; 32:13; 35:3; 44:5; 58:14 obstructed [1] 20:13 obtain [1] 29:3 occurred [3] 5:19; 26:10; 38:12 october [4] 7:16, 18; 22:25; 40:5 offender [1] 15:7 offered [6] 7:20; 14:9; 15:7; 54:14; 58:18; 59:13 office [25] 1:16; 10:13; 11:20; 13:16, 17; 14:25; 15:3, 23, 25; 16:2, 7; 19:15, 16; 22:23; 23:6; 24:8, 8, 16; 26:22; 27:20; 36:25; 50:1; 59:19; 60:3; 61:9 officer [5] 5:21; 7:13; 20:6; 45:13; 52:17 officers [11] 20:3; 23:5; 25:13; 29:24; 31:9; 36:10, 15, 16; 37:8; 38:10; 51:15 official [2] 1:33; 61:2 old [1] 5:7 ones [2] 17:9; 18:16 one-third [5] 14:2; 46:5; 47:19; 52:5, 10 opportunist [2] 28:7; 56:23 opportunitie s [1] 31:17 opportunity [6] 16:15; 23:10, 22; 31:18; 39:18; 56:25 order [4] 28:23; 29:18; 44:10, 12 ordered [3] 11:4; 15:10, 13 ordinary [1] 42:24 oteri [17] 7:17, 20; 8:1, 9; 22:17, 21; 23:4; 40:5, 10, 15, 19, 23; 51:7, 8, 10, 13, 19 otherwise [2] 34:3; 61:15 outcome [2] 54:21; 61:16 overwhelmin g [1] 27:16 own [13] 7:2; 16:2, 21; 17:19; 23:12; 26:19; 30:6; 31:8; 36:7, 23; 39:2; 40:13; 52:25 P p.c [1] 1:23 p.m [2] 4:2; 60:23 pacino [2] 36:11, 16 page [4] 2:3, 4; 3:2; 36:6 74 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 pages [3] 1:1; 16:24, 25 paid [4] 6:13; 7:3; 8:3; 19:24 panic [1] 60:17 parole [8] 14:1; 32:21; 42:2; 46:6; 48:2; 52:5, 9, 10 part [5] 20:24; 30:6; 42:6; 51:9, 20 parte [3] 45:6, 13; 46:4 particularly [2] 39:8; 53:21 parties [2] 18:3; 61:13 party [1] 37:3 passed [1] 41:11 past [3] 15:7; 17:2; 18:23 patience [1] 27:23 paula [5] 1:32; 61:2, 7, 11, 17 pause [1] 54:23 pawn [1] 18:11 payments [1] 6:15 payroll [4] 10:19, 20; 14:7; 22:10 pemberton [1] 61:3 pending [11] 14:17; 32:8, 18; 40:13; 41:21; 42:14, 15; 43:21; 50:22; 53:24, 25 perfect [2] 25:23; 39:4 perjury [10] 6:7; 16:22; 19:5, 7; 20:9; 27:13; 41:1; 50:18; 53:4; 56:6 person [1] 35:2 personal [1] 7:2 pharmacy [1] 8:18 philip [5] 7:17, 20; 8:9; 22:17; 23:4 phone [1] 51:11 physical [1] 37:21 pick [1] 24:9 piece [1] 24:20 pietrella [5] 1:32; 61:2, 7, 11, 17 pigeon [1] 18:9 piles [1] 25:9 pinch [1] 10:14 place [5] 23:14; 32:22; 48:3; 56:1; 57:7 plain [1] 33:22 plans [1] 43:1 plea [10] 18:1, 7; 27:7; 43:10, 23; 44:20; 45:1, 4; 46:11; 52:1 plenty [1] 46:19 plot [4] 35:15, 23, 25; 37:10 plots [1] 31:20 pointed [8] 34:17; 35:9; 38:5, 23; 42:7; 46:10; 48:11; 53:20 points [2] 16:23; 34:20 pole [2] 40:10; 48:5 police [33] 5:9, 21; 6:18, 22, 23; 7:12; 10:13, 22; 11:21; 19:24; 20:5, 6, 17; 22:7, 19, 20; 25:13, 19; 27:19; 29:22; 30:4; 31:9; 32:2; 36:10, 15; 37:8; 38:10; 45:13; 49:16, 20; 51:8, 14, 15 policy [6] 24:16, 17, 22; 25:4, 8, 9 polish [1] 60:18 position [1] 21:17 possession [2] 20:21; 57:10 possible [2] 40:20; 49:19 postarraignment [1] 23:10 power [1] 18:21 powerful [3] 18:25; 27:15; 53:21 powers [4] 9:8, 8, 18; 31:6 preferred [1] 30:5 prepare [1] 50:4 presentation [1] 21:19 presentation s [1] 60:11 presented [5] 10:6; 31:18; 33:25; 48:4; 56:13 preserve [1] 25:14 pretrial [1] 19:25 prevail [1] 28:23 prevented [2] 50:11; 58:1 privilege [2] 9:20, 22 probable [2] 11:1; 43:6 probation [4] 42:10; 50:12, 15, 16 problem [3] 11:8, 9; 57:24 problems [1] 31:2 proceed [1] 60:13 proceedings [2] 4:1; 61:5 process [1] 20:23 produced [1] 21:5 product [1] 50:4 proffered [1] 54:20 promise [13] 7:24; 12:19, 20; 22:4, 12, 75 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 24; 23:3; 40:17; 43:19; 46:5; 52:4, 5, 6 promised [2] 14:1; 52:18 promises [8] 14:5, 8, 18; 19:4; 21:9; 32:5; 40:24; 51:23 promising [1] 48:2 promotion [4] 17:24; 27:8, 11; 44:13 proof [2] 20:14; 35:6 proper [1] 50:9 properly [1] 48:20 prosecute [2] 7:13; 15:2 prosecuted [1] 19:17 prosecuting [1] 14:24 prosecution [9] 18:20; 19:4; 20:3; 29:21; 42:6; 51:9, 20; 56:16; 58:6 prosecutor [5] 6:4; 13:18; 14:23; 19:10; 21:21 prosecutors [3] 20:2; 25:12; 52:14 prosecutor’s [2] 24:10; 50:3 protocols [2] 50:1; 56:16 prove [1] 28:24 provide [1] 31:20 provided [3] 11:25; 31:15, 23 provides [1] 23:2 providing [1] 28:10 pulled [1] 16:24 pure [1] 49:8 purpose [2] 34:23; 35:8 purposeful [1] 49:1 pursuant [2] 24:15; 50:1 Q questions [1] 54:6 quickly [1] 29:25 quite [1] 19:21 quote [5] 10:14; 11:19; 14:8; 16:7; 52:6 R race [1] 59:16 radar [1] 30:22 raised [1] 20:3 ran [1] 56:1 rappaport [1] 45:3 rather [2] 25:9; 29:19 reached [1] 30:10 read [1] 37:25 realized [1] 17:3 realizing [1] 31:13 reason [2] 17:22; 44:17 reasonable [2] 37:5; 38:1 reasons [2] 22:7; 58:15 rebuttal [1] 57:20 recall [1] 44:2 recalling [1] 41:10 recanted [1] 32:25 receive [1] 27:17 received [4] 6:14; 30:16; 48:1; 52:1 receives [1] 47:6 receiving [1] 32:19 recharacterize s [1] 41:5 recognizance [1] 7:2 recognize [1] 12:20 recommenda tion [7] 15:5, 8, 11, 13; 44:10; 45:19; 46:14 recommenda tions [1] 46:15 recommendi ng [1] 7:10 reconstruct [2] 16:15; 23:25 recorded [4] 30:14; 31:8; 36:15, 17 records [1] 49:21 recreate [1] 49:19 recruit [1] 54:13 red [1] 20:3 reddington [1] 45:3 reference [1] 38:16 referenced [1] 37:9 referencing [4] 34:18; 38:7; 40:5; 48:12 referring [2] 36:13; 38:9 refers [1] 36:9 reflect [1] 39:5 reflected [2] 34:8; 35:13 regarding [4] 11:21; 14:10; 24:16; 43:21 registered [2] 6:13; 8:3 rejected [1] 33:2 related [1] 61:12 relationship [8] 10:24; 12:22; 22:5, 6; 23:4; 29:11; 40:3; 55:4 relaying [1] 48:7 released [2] 7:1, 3 reliability [1] 28:17 reliable [1] 31:25 relief [3] 49:5; 53:16; 57:14 76 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 relies [1] 43:15 re-litigate [1] 56:10 reluctant [1] 47:7 relying [2] 18:1; 24:6 remained [3] 11:14; 18:11; 33:7 rememberin g [2] 38:2; 59:25 rental [1] 56:1 rented [1] 56:2 repeatedly [3] 38:8; 45:5; 58:11 repeating [1] 7:19 replaced [2] 13:21; 46:4 report [5] 7:9; 16:1, 1, 3; 51:14 reported [1] 37:22 reporter [3] 1:33; 11:24; 61:3 reports [2] 49:17, 20 representati on [1] 19:21 represented [2] 37:21; 38:25 request [1] 14:4 requests [4] 19:3, 5; 21:4; 49:17 requires [2] 20:23; 52:9 resolution [1] 46:24 resolutions [2] 46:25; 47:2 resolved [1] 54:18 resources [1] 30:4 respectfully [1] 57:15 response [1] 60:9 responsible [1] 50:14 rest [1] 41:5 result [3] 8:15; 9:19; 31:1 resulted [2] 46:11; 50:21 retention [1] 25:4 return [1] 32:6 revealed [1] 21:24 revealing [1] 19:25 reward [2] 46:18; 48:1 rewards [10] 14:5, 9, 19; 19:4; 21:9; 29:15; 32:10; 41:18; 42:5; 51:23 reynolds [3] 7:25; 12:21; 22:4 ridiculous [1] 37:2 risk [2] 55:7, 11 robberies [8] 8:24; 15:16; 25:21; 31:11; 38:11, 13; 42:14; 46:17 robbery [15] 6:16; 7:14, 22; 8:19, 20, 20, 21; 23:1; 42:8, 16, 16, 17, 19; 43:12; 52:8 robert [4] 1:19; 4:17; 11:5; 13:18 rodwell [56] 1:10; 4:9, 20, 22, 24; 5:7, 11, 14, 22; 6:5; 7:13; 8:22; 9:8, 14; 10:8, 15; 11:14, 22; 12:4, 11; 13:12; 14:3, 22; 16:3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14; 17:5, 16; 18:15, 17; 19:13, 18, 20; 20:10; 21:3; 22:8; 23:5, 24, 25; 24:12; 26:9; 27:16; 35:12; 36:1; 38:16; 39:8, 10, 15; 58:6, 10; 59:17, 24; 60:4 rodwell’s [7] 10:10; 11:16; 12:5, 25; 13:10; 23:20; 25:3 role [1] 30:11 rose [11] 5:8, 9, 15; 8:4, 10; 9:9; 21:12; 22:18, 21; 31:24; 32:15 rosenthal [7] 11:6; 18:2; 45:19, 21, 25; 46:2; 48:9 rosenthal’s [4] 45:15, 19; 47:20; 48:5 rufo [2] 36:10, 17 ruled [1] 21:21 rules [2] 53:1, 15 run [1] 46:15 running [8] 34:9; 35:14; 39:19; 43:25; 45:15, 17; 47:20; 48:5 S sabotaged [1] 18:7 safety [1] 8:15 sahakian [1] 15:21 sat [2] 6:3; 19:6 scene [1] 29:24 seated [1] 4:4 secure [1] 53:9 seeks [2] 20:20; 21:1 send [1] 36:24 sending [1] 22:7 senior [3] 15:10; 17:8; 18:11 sense [11] 23:15, 15; 25:23; 35:22, 24; 36:2, 20, 21, 24; 38:9; 39:4 sent [4] 18:17, 21; 19:14, 15 sentence [8] 47:6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 19, 21, 22 77 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 sentences [4] 23:14; 32:20; 42:1; 46:12 sentencing [2] 45:14; 46:21 separate [2] 10:17; 37:6 serve [1] 34:24 served [5] 32:20; 34:23; 42:2; 47:15, 24 session [2] 4:5; 60:16 set [2] 21:22; 51:11 several [5] 7:8; 8:24; 36:10; 40:6, 7 severe [1] 19:1 shannon [1] 16:8 sheets [9] 33:19; 34:9; 35:14; 39:19; 43:25; 45:15, 17; 47:21; 48:5 shouldn’t [1] 24:9 show [3] 37:12; 38:3; 55:22 showed [1] 26:20 shown [6] 29:19; 33:10; 34:2, 6; 41:15; 55:5 shows [10] 12:12, 23; 18:25; 27:16, 17; 29:6; 48:3, 16; 51:19; 56:14 sidebar [9] 17:19, 20; 18:3, 4; 27:4; 45:9, 18, 22; 46:1 sides [1] 60:13 siegel [14] 6:4, 19; 17:11; 24:13; 49:7, 14, 25; 50:18, 19; 52:21, 22, 24; 53:10, 18 siegel’s [1] 52:13 signature [1] 33:18 significance [1] 12:12 significant [1] 6:21 silverman [2] 37:15; 59:5 silverman’s [1] 35:17 simple [4] 33:22; 34:21, 21; 36:8 simply [10] 35:6, 16; 36:2, 20; 38:1; 41:10; 44:5; 51:21; 52:10; 54:4 single [2] 51:14; 59:23 sitting [1] 18:18 situation [2] 37:1; 40:20 six [7] 5:10; 13:15, 17; 14:3; 15:16; 34:22; 58:17 skips [1] 6:19 snitch [1] 55:9 solid [1] 60:15 somebody [1] 37:4 somehow [3] 32:3; 45:9; 58:12 someone [1] 37:3 somerville [15] 6:17, 22, 23, 24; 7:12; 8:13; 20:17; 22:20; 27:19; 29:22, 24; 40:8; 42:18; 51:8, 15 sometime [5] 5:19; 8:12; 10:11; 16:5; 22:9 son [1] 5:8 soon [1] 51:16 sorry [1] 11:7 sort [11] 29:11; 40:17, 24; 42:22; 43:13, 16; 46:18; 48:14, 17; 50:8; 52:16 spartichino [75] 5:24; 6:2, 3; 9:11, 16; 10:23; 12:7, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19; 13:2, 9, 13, 20, 22, 25; 14:11, 14, 25; 15:1, 9; 16:18; 17:7, 18; 18:5, 7; 19:6; 20:9; 22:5, 18; 23:16; 24:2; 26:14; 27:5; 30:2, 5, 15; 31:6; 32:4, 5, 17; 34:13, 16, 18; 35:4; 36:21, 23; 39:23; 41:20, 22; 43:19, 22, 23; 44:1, 15, 20, 21; 45:7, 9, 18; 46:2; 48:1, 7, 8; 52:2; 53:7, 9; 56:17; 58:13, 16, 23; 59:15, 20 spartichino’s [5] 10:13; 22:12; 35:1; 46:10; 59:19 speak [4] 12:18; 32:7; 41:20; 43:20 speaking [3] 9:18, 18; 30:13 speaks [2] 9:7; 28:4 specific [9] 14:4; 19:3, 5; 20:20; 21:4; 29:3; 41:12; 48:16; 57:6 specifically [3] 20:9; 30:1; 38:12 speculate [6] 27:14; 58:10, 11, 11, 15; 59:4 speculates [1] 59:1 speculation [2] 49:8; 59:14 speeding [1] 54:11 spite [1] 58:13 spoke [2] 32:17; 41:22 spree [1] 30:22 78 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 spring [2] 6:14; 33:14 square [1] 61:3 stamp [2] 36:6; 45:17 stand [5] 13:6; 15:14; 17:17; 19:6; 60:6 standard [7] 21:2, 5; 24:5, 6; 29:20, 21; 42:2 starting [1] 30:19 state [18] 10:13, 22; 19:23; 22:7; 25:3; 27:2; 35:11, 14, 18; 36:11, 19; 37:13, 16; 38:3; 45:17; 59:3, 6, 18 stated [3] 5:14; 21:16; 59:17 statement [21] 9:14; 10:24; 20:5, 11; 30:14; 31:6, 8; 35:2, 13, 13; 36:16, 18; 37:1, 12, 16; 38:10; 39:14, 20; 40:3, 5, 15 statements [7] 14:5; 32:15; 35:9; 48:4, 9; 57:8; 58:7 states [2] 19:16; 21:5 statutory [3] 32:21; 42:3; 47:18 steadfast [1] 33:7 steadfastly [1] 33:2 stool [1] 18:9 strike [2] 12:24; 59:3 strong [2] 55:1, 24 subject [1] 48:19 substantial [3] 15:22; 55:7, 11 such [5] 16:17; 29:7; 31:18; 35:7; 41:9 suffering [1] 37:17 suffolk [17] 8:24; 9:3; 11:20; 13:16, 17; 14:15; 15:17; 17:8; 18:10; 26:7, 24; 31:11; 32:18; 42:14; 43:21, 23; 53:8 suggests [2] 33:17; 51:13 suite [1] 1:11 superior [2] 1:4; 11:18 superiors [1] 46:15 support [3] 34:16; 50:8; 55:22 supports [2] 34:14; 56:21 supposed [3] 11:13; 25:14; 57:23 supposedly [1] 15:24 suppress [2] 20:11; 29:1 suppressed [1] 55:3 suspect [1] 56:17 system [2] 18:8, 13 T table [1] 18:19 talked [4] 20:5; 26:7; 45:2, 10 team [3] 27:12; 51:9, 21 telling [1] 27:3 tells [4] 9:8, 25; 25:4; 26:1 ten [1] 26:2 terms [1] 48:1 test [1] 21:8 testified [32] 5:18, 20, 23; 10:7, 9; 12:3, 14, 15; 13:1, 7; 15:14, 21; 17:17; 20:4; 22:14; 23:12; 24:13; 26:8, 12; 27:6; 28:18; 32:13; 34:10; 38:18; 39:14, 20; 41:20; 42:13; 44:14; 58:14, 24; 59:7 testify [6] 10:5; 23:21, 22; 26:23; 38:17, 21 testimonies [1] 50:5 themselves [1] 4:11 therefore [1] 57:15 thin [7] 17:16; 24:17, 18, 22, 22; 25:9; 50:2 third [1] 48:3 thomas [1] 1:13 thorough [1] 52:22 thousand [1] 16:25 threat [1] 22:11 threaten [1] 22:8 threatened [2] 10:14; 37:11 throughout [5] 6:4, 5; 19:6, 21; 47:14 thursday [1] 1:31 thus [3] 31:15; 42:11; 55:2 ticket [1] 54:11 times [1] 60:14 today [1] 16:18 together [2] 5:17; 43:10 top [2] 40:14; 55:24 torino [1] 56:2 totem [2] 40:9; 48:5 touch [2] 13:2, 8 touchstone [1] 25:9 toward [1] 35:10 79 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 traded [1] 56:2 transcript [7] 11:4; 19:15, 25; 38:24; 45:24; 61:4, 10 transcripts [5] 11:23; 16:25; 18:1; 19:14; 46:1 transfer [1] 11:6 transferred [3] 11:3, 10, 13 transportati on [2] 11:8; 53:9 transported [1] 32:9 trial [50] 1:5; 6:4, 5, 11; 8:22; 13:2; 14:3, 21; 16:19; 17:13; 18:17; 19:2, 7; 20:1, 7; 21:7; 24:10; 27:17; 28:24; 29:15; 31:21; 32:11, 12, 14; 33:2, 8; 34:10; 38:16; 42:11; 43:17, 17, 18; 44:11; 48:22, 24; 49:13, 15, 19, 25; 53:7, 23; 54:4, 8, 9; 56:23; 57:14, 16; 58:22; 60:4; 61:9 tried [10] 5:11; 17:5, 11, 14; 20:10; 52:25; 53:19; 54:9, 13; 55:20 tries [1] 42:4 trooper [2] 9:7; 38:3 troopers [13] 10:13; 35:11, 15, 19, 24; 36:11, 19, 25; 37:13, 17; 59:3, 6, 19 trouble [2] 28:8; 56:24 true [2] 46:7; 61:4 truth [2] 33:1, 7 tucceri [1] 51:18 turned [7] 12:11; 49:11, 23, 24; 52:19; 53:1, 12 turning [2] 50:14; 52:23 twelve [1] 16:24 two-thirds [1] 52:9 type [2] 7:24; 10:23 U unable [1] 16:6 uncorrected [2] 6:8; 20:10 under [14] 7:24; 12:21; 17:25; 19:9; 21:25; 22:1, 2; 24:13; 32:13; 35:3, 4; 44:5; 51:18; 58:14 underlying [1] 21:22 undermined [1] 44:11 undisclosed [9] 21:9; 29:14, 16; 41:17; 48:23; 49:4, 12; 51:22; 52:20 unequivocall y [3] 13:7; 17:18; 59:7 unfortunatel y [1] 30:20 unilaterally [2] 18:8; 40:23 unindicted [2] 9:9, 14 uninvolved [1] 37:3 unit [2] 30:1, 3 united [1] 19:16 unlikely [1] 31:16 unrelated [1] 39:11 un-relatedly [1] 30:20 unreliability [1] 40:14 unreliable [4] 28:13; 44:4, 6; 59:12 unremarkabl e [1] 56:16 unsworn [1] 35:1 untruthfully [1] 20:4 unusual [3] 46:8, 14; 47:11 upon [2] 9:20; 24:6 upset [2] 15:4, 4 urges [1] 59:22 using [1] 17:9 usually [1] 28:10 V vaguely [1] 41:19 various [1] 58:15 vehemently [1] 33:1 verdict [1] 55:7 veronica [2] 1:26; 4:19 vigilance [1] 20:24 vigorously [1] 60:12 violations [1] 19:1 visit [3] 36:12, 19; 38:3 visited [3] 35:11, 14; 37:13 W wait [1] 43:8 waited [1] 60:20 waived [1] 11:1 waiving [1] 9:20 waltham [1] 38:14 war [2] 18:18, 21 warned [1] 56:6 warrant [4] 7:8; 19:1; 30:16; 57:13 wears [1] 6:9 weigh [1] 55:14 weighed [1] 56:11 we’ve [5] 37:14; 46:19, 21; 47:18; 49:22 80 INDEX for Rodwell_03_02_16 wheels [1] 18:12 whereby [1] 29:3 white [13] 1:23, 26; 4:19, 19; 5:2, 3, 6; 33:6; 34:11; 36:6; 57:20, 22; 60:22 whitehead [8] 43:4; 46:22; 47:1, 4; 49:7, 14; 52:21; 53:18 whitehead’s [1] 52:12 whitley [1] 19:9 whole [1] 19:7 wife [2] 10:14; 37:10 wilcox [1] 6:17 william [3] 6:1; 32:1; 59:15 wishes [1] 50:7 wishing [1] 24:25 withheld [3] 27:18; 51:22, 24 witness [7] 21:7, 12; 35:3; 54:5, 7; 59:23, 25 witnessed [1] 53:4 witnesses [9] 16:16, 16, 18; 19:24; 23:20, 22; 45:11; 57:24; 60:2 witnesses’s [1] 50:5 witness’s [1] 20:1 woburn [2] 1:18, 29 women [1] 8:18 word [1] 32:16 work [8] 7:4; 10:3; 29:17; 30:5; 36:23; 50:4; 51:3; 52:25 worked [3] 8:2; 22:18, 21 working [5] 7:6; 10:22; 15:20; 30:24; 33:3 world [1] 21:15 worried [1] 16:21 wrap [2] 43:1, 7 wrapping [1] 47:12 write [3] 14:14; 43:20; 51:14 writes [1] 9:23 writing [2] 38:19; 44:8 written [4] 8:9; 26:19; 34:22; 58:16 wrong [1] 24:4 wrote [5] 9:21; 26:21; 35:4; 48:12; 51:10 Y yesterday [1] 24:3 york [2] 15:20; 19:16