Hey, there! Log in / Register

There's lying to police and then there's lying to police, court rules

A man convicted on two counts of "misleading" state troopers in a criminal investigation had one of the counts tossed today because only some of his lies might have changed their investigation into how somebody got smashed in the head with a bottle during a brawl at a house party he and his sister threw.

The distinction is important because state law defines "misleading" statements as those meant with "the intent to impede, obstruct, delay, harm, punish, or otherwise interfere thereby with a criminal investigation," the court said.

A jury had convicted Raymond Zachary Paquette of Westhampton for "misleading" state troopers at two separate interviews about the 2014 incident. At the first interview, the day after the fight, Paquette denied he knew anything about how the fight started and that he was outside picking up beer cans at the time and that the people involved weren't his friends.

State troopers thought he was holding back and brought him back in a couple weeks later for a second interview so that they could "clear the air like adults" - even though they had already arrested a suspect. This time, Paquette said he was "blackout drunk" from sleep medication and couldn't recall much.

At the conclusion of his trial, the judge in the case instructed the jury to find him guilty if they agreed he had made any misleading statements to the troopers and jurors found him guilty on the two-count indictment.

But that was a mistake, because of the way the state law on misleading police requires an element of potentially changing the course of a police investigation, the state's highest court ruled today.

The court upheld Paquette's conviction for lying in the first interview, because it happened so early in the investigation that a jury could conclude he had been trying to mislead police and change the course of the investigation:

[T[he jury might have inferred that the defendant "misled" police within the meaning of [the law] by lying about his location at the time of the fight, or by misrepresenting that he did not know the identities of certain people involved, if they found that such statements reasonably could have influenced the investigation in a material way. The jury also might have inferred from circumstantial evidence that the defendant specifically intended to impede, obstruct, delay, or otherwise interfere with the investigation.

In contrast, the court continued, nothing Paquette said at the second interview would likely have changed the course of their investigation since they had already made an arrest:

As noted, statements are not misleading within the meaning of [the law] unless, given the information known to police at the time the statements were made, the statements reasonably could have led police to pursue a materially different course of investigation. The Commonwealth presented no direct evidence, however, that the defendant's statements at the second interview reasonably could have led police astray in this manner. Nor was the evidence that was presented sufficient to allow for an inference to that effect. By the time of the second interview, police already had conducted an extensive investigation, and Bousquet had been arrested and charged. Furthermore, once police asked the defendant to "clear the air," they presented him with the unenviable choice between admitting that he had lied and omitted information at his first interview, and repeating his misstatements from the first interview, either of which could expose him to potential criminal liability under [the law]. Given the timing of the defendant's statements and what police already knew, and in the absence of other evidence indicating that the statements reasonably could have affected the police investigation in a material way, the evidence was not sufficient to allow for the conclusion that the defendant "misled" police, within the meaning of [the law], at the second interview.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete Paquette ruling114.16 KB


Ad:


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

Comments

Without reading the whole case, did the guy who fought get convicted?

up
Voting closed 0

Is it legal for the police to lie to you in a criminal investigation?

up
Voting closed 0

Watch this. From a law professor at that bastion of cop-hating leftists, Regent University.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

up
Voting closed 0

When you don't talk to the police, the police only have one side. This can especially be damaging in sexual assault investigations where the sex may have been consensual and/or you may have evidence to clear your name before an arrest warrant issued or you get arrested. Being found "not guilty" may be the most important thing down the road, but if you didn't do anything wrong, talk to the police with an attorney with you, unless you know you may have been framed in some sort of TV movie type situation.

up
Voting closed 0

You got it wrong bub.

"The court upheld Paquette's conviction for lying in the first interview..."

Both convictions were vacated. Count One can be retried with a correct jury instruction. The SJC ordered a required finding of not guilty on Count Two.

You're welcome.

up
Voting closed 0