Hey, there! Log in / Register

Court says Cambridge pool-supply worker still a murderer, just not in the first degree

The Supreme Judicial Court today overturned the first-degree murder conviction of Clyde Howard, for the 2009 shooting death of a co-worker at a Cambridge pool-supply company, citing errors by both police and the prosecutor in the case.

The court said Middlesex County prosecutors can either attempt to re-try Howard, 70, for first-degree murder or consent to having his verdict reduced to second-degree murder.

In 2011, a jury agreed with prosecutors that Howard went out of his way to shoot a co-worker at Baystate Pool
Supplies in the head and convicted him of first-degree murder, which carries an automatic sentence of life without parole.

But the state's highest court ruled that even though Howard voluntarily made several statements to police officers and detectives incriminating himself, they should have stopped questioning him when he said he was done talking - but didn't.

The prosecutor in the case then compounded that error by using his statements after he said he didn't want to talk anymore, the court said. Also, in his closing statement, the prosecutor cited Howard's Miranda right to stop talking as an attempt to show his guilt, which is a constitutional violation, the court said.

The prosecutor's use of testimony about Howard's alleged poor treatment of his wife and children to buttress his case in his closing was also a bad mistake, because the judge had said evidence could only be introduced that was directly related to the murder:

In his closing, the prosecutor repeatedly and quite blatantly ignored the judge's evidentiary limitation; the argument is laced with remarks describing the defendant as a "mean" and "violent man" likely to commit violent acts -- i.e., using the bad acts directly as propensity evidence and negative character evidence. This use is forbidden and prejudicial.

Howard never denied killing the co-worker, but pleaded insanity.

The court gave the Middlesex County DA's office two weeks to decide what to do with the case.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

In 2011 I interviewed at this company. I was in the running until I refused the job due to pay and commute.

I always had a odd feeling going into this office (they are near Alewife).. now I know why.

*shiver*

up
Voting closed 0

For what position? I can guarantee you made the right call...

up
Voting closed 0

IT related position. Why a pool company needed an IT person... dunno.

up
Voting closed 0

The prosecutor directly violated the judge's evidentiary instructions in his closing arguments, and neither the judge nor the defense attorney objected at the time?

Sounds like a case (no pun intended) by the defense of "If we lose, I'll try to find some way to appeal." Which is exacly what's wrong with our system of justice.

up
Voting closed 0

... there would be no basis for appeal (the issue would have been treated as waived). So, presumably, the Judge failed to enforce his own rules at the time of the final argument.

up
Voting closed 0