Hey, there! Log in / Register
New trial ordered for man convicted of killing Roxbury girl by shooting her in the face with a shotgun
By adamg on Fri, 02/12/2016 - 4:08pm
A Suffolk Superior Court judge has ordered a new trial for Joseph Cousin, convicted of second-degree murder for the 2002 death of Trina Persad, 10, because of a possible conflict of interest on his lawyer's part.
The Suffolk County District Attorney's office is appealing the ruling.
In 2009, a Suffolk Superior Court jury agreed with prosecutors that Cousin, a member of the Magnolia-Intervale-Columbia gang, killed Persad in Jermaine Goffigan Park - itself named for a child murdered in a gang battle - when he fired at a member of rival gang. An earlier trial had ended in a mistrial after the judge learned that several jury members had lied about their past criminal activities.
Cousin was sentenced to life with the chance for parole in 15 years. He also received another 15-year sentence for other offenses.
Cousin's lawyer during the second trial, William White, had once represented a Boston Police homicide detective in a federal lawsuit involving a 1997 murder investigation.
The detective was not assigned to the homicide unit when Persad was murdered and took no part in the investigation, but Judge Janet Sanders ruled that was enough of a potential conflict that he should never have been appointed to represent Cousins.
In a statement, DA Dan Conley said:
We disagree in the strongest possible terms with this decision. We will argue that its legal and factual foundations are so flawed as to warrant reversal.
The record makes clear that Attorney White’s involvement in those civil proceedings had effectively ended by the time of the Cousin trial. Moreover, it shows that he never held back in defense of his client. Like his predecessor counsel, he attacked the police investigation aggressively. That he secured a second-degree murder verdict where prosecutors argued so effectively for a first-degree conviction shows his effectiveness as a zealous advocate.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
great
now her poor mother and entire family has to relive this nightmare. rip trina
yeah
we should abolish the right to a fair trial when it becomes inconvenient or emotional for people
When the potential issue at hand
has NOTHING to do with the circumstances or evidence in the case, and could have been resolved prior to the start of the original trial, then this is a total waste of resources. Especially when it's clear that legal counsel did not let the previous representation in an unrelated civil trail affect his judgment in defending his client in a subsequent criminal trial.
This has "my client was found guilty, so we're going to try to exploit a concidence to our advantage and force a new - and unwarranted trial" written all over it.
it has everything
to do with precedent and maintaining what semblance of integrity our system has.
you might be surprised to know that it is in fact the attorneys job to use every means possible within the law to exonerate his client. if they do not, there is a term for it. its called malpractice.
And, with respect, it should have been brought up
at the beginning of the original trial. Sorry, but "possible conflict of interest" doesn't justify a "do-over", especially when a little girl is dead.
This is the type of technical nonsense that needs to be eliminated from our justice system. "Innocent after proven guilty" with NO exculpatory evidence to support it is an insult to the victim's family, and to the jurors who rendered the original verdict.
you and i
have a fundamental disagreement about what is acceptable in our justice system then, i suppose
oh well
You and I
Obviously you and I do not belong on the same planet. Even the far left moonbats on the SJC will reject this logic or our society will suffer terribly.
There is a "possible conflict of interest" because the public defender once represented a police officer in an unrelated case and said officer simply was still employed by the department (had no role in the investigation). If that is true what the court is saying is that attorney may never again represent a defendant in a case where the police are involved in an investigation without having a possible conflict. I guess we should fire his sorry ass because his career is over due to the fact he once advocated on behalf of a police officer. He's corrupted.
If I was currently employed as a police officer I'd think long and hard about getting the hell out of this state, because what kind of idiot is going to defend me in the future if this decision stands.
I would suggest that you reconsider your original opinion on this.
And for those of you trolls who consider me unreasonable, look in a mirror.
Conflict of interest
"at the beginning of the original trial. Sorry, but "possible conflict of interest" doesn't justify a "do-over", especially when a little girl is dead."
Roadman makes a valid point. Here's another one: I know of a defense attorney that used to be a Middlesex County prosecutor. Could he be held to this 'conflict of interest' standard because ten years earlier he worked for the government instead of against it?
Attorneys have clients. If the position of one of them as a government employee forever bars an attorney from taking on a certain set of clients, then most attorneys would have to declare a 'pro or against' position forever.
Foolish. This judge is way out of line. Damn shame the family has to suffer through it again.
I would assume...
... this lower court order can be appealed.
especially when a little girl
Because the seriousness of the crime alters the rights the defendant has.
attacking interests of city who is paying you
attacking the interests of the city and the police department when they are paying you hundreds of thousands to defend police officers has something to do with the case!
You have no idea if it has
You have no idea if it has anything to do with the evidence, or not, because the lawyer had a conflict of interest. The idea behind a CoI in general is that someone working for you could have intentionally - or unintentionally even - done a subpar job, or even withheld evidence, because they were also working for someone else. Divided loyalties cause mistrust and can't be allowed a part of the judicial or political system.
You find yourself on trial for something you didn't do, then find out your own lawyer previously just represented someone working for your opponent. You're still going to trust him?
The people in Salem in 1692
The people in Salem in 1692 had the right idea. When you have an emotional case, damn the defendants' rights and just start hanging them!
Fair trial
Was that you that was on camera/identified by witnesses/etc? Yes? Were those your fingerprints on the murder weapon? Yes? Was that gunshot residue found on your clothes? Yes? Did your cell phone put you on crime scene at the time the crime was commited? Yes? Got a verifiable alibi proving you weren't there? No? Guilty! Next! That's a fair and speedy trial.
And no, Mr sleazy-ass lawyer, it doesn't matter how any of that evidence was obtained, you can stick that illegal search bullcrap right up your ass. Video is still video, murder weapon is still murder weapon, fingerprints are still fingerprints, and a four pound bag of heroin is still a four pound bag of heroin. And we don't give a rat's ass if you fell asleep during the trial.
interests conflicted
Joseph Cousin's attorney was being paid by the Boston Police Department hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend against allegations of police misconduct while at the same time being obligated to expose police misconduct in the arrest of Joseph Cousin? Sounds like a conflict of interest to me! I remember this case when it was happening. Joseph Cousin always said he was innocent and had nothing to do with it!
"Cousin's lawyer during the
"Cousin's lawyer during the second trial, William White, had once represented a Boston Police homicide detective in a federal lawsuit involving a 1997 murder investigation. "
"In 2009, a Suffolk Superior Court jury agreed with prosecutors that Cousin, a member of the Magnolia-Intervale-Columbia gang, killed Persad in Jermaine Goffigan Park - itself named for a child murdered in a gang battle - when he fired at a member of rival gang."
That's about a dozen years apart. Hardly "while at the same time being "...
Speedy trial
It doesn't say the trial for the 1997 thing took place in 1997. Persad was murdered in 2002, her case went to trial in 2009, and we're still arguing over it in 2016. There aren't enough details in the timelines in this article to know if the 1997 case wasn't being argued by the lawyer a year, or a month or a week, before the 2009 murder trial.
exactly, this blurb is not an article
and unfortunately, it looks like it is based on a biased statement from the DA, not other articles that are available.
no, representation at same time
the original criminal case that turned into the dual representation may have been a dozen years. the dual representation was at the exact same time. you have to get your facts straight. also being paid hundreds of thousands from police.
What an idiotic system
If a thug was seen murdering someone by multiple witnesses, has gunshot residue all over his clothes and his fingerprints all over the murder weapon, why is he even allowed to waste taxpayer money not on one but on multiple trials?
OMG!!
nothing about gunshot residue. not seen by multiple witnesses either. can't make stuff up ...