c

j



j
   j   

  j 

   j  




j









 

   
 j


Now comes the Defendant in the above-entitled action and moves this honorable

court to dismiss the indictment against the defendant on the following grounds:

1) Exculpatory evidence was withheld from the Grand Jury

when there was a duty to present it; and

2) The omission of the exculpatory evidence distorted the

evidence which was presented to the Grand Jury.

The evidence omitted from presentation to the Grand Jury clearly showed that

the Commonwealth had credible evidence that Mr. Renaud had expressed remorse at

the death of Ms. Prince. Mr. Renaud denied any sexual relationship with Ms. Prince.

Mr. Renaud was interviewed without an attorney and without the presence of his parent.

The interview was conducted by Trooper Jamie J. Magarian and Trooper Geraldine L.

Bresnahan at the Northampton State Police Barracks. The interview was videotaped.

c
-1-c
c
The videotape contained exculpatory evidence that the government was obligated to

provide to the members of the Grand Jury prior to their deliberation and vote on the

indictment related to Austin Renaud. D   !" #$%" $& ' '!"%  !$& ( $)

')% $& $*"% +)%", &"'* -$ ! !$& +, .

In the videotape Mr. Renaud expresses remorse on the death of Ms. Prince and

described his relationship with Ms. Prince in the fall and winter of 2009. The officers

accused Mr. Austin of sexual intercourse with Ms. Prince and Mr. Renaud denied that

anything like that had occurred. The interrogators became much more insistent that

sexual acts had occurred and that the police had first hand evidence that the acts had in

fact happened. Mr. Renaud denied their allegations and requested the opportunity to

speak with an attorney. Mr. Renaud¶s request for a lawyer was commented on by the

police and the need for a lawyer was discounted. Mr. Renaud then left the room and

the police followed him into the hallway outside the interrogation room. Heard on the

tape is the raised voice of the police as Mr. Renaud leaves the room and attempts to

leave the building. Mr. Renaud was intimidated by the conduct of the police based on

his request for the assistance of counsel.

It could be reasonably concluded that the playing of this videotape from the

interview to the members of the Grand Jury would have presented the investigating

officers in an unflattering light and would have effected the Juror¶s deliberations. The

tape would have also presented Mr. Renaud to the members of the Grand Jury

providing his denial and exposing the conduct and attitude of the police during the

interview. The statements of Mr. Renaud in the interrogation were material, relevant

c
-2-c
c
and exculpatory and should have been presented to the Grand Jury by the government.

The Defendant requests that the indictment be dismissed in accordance with the

ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court in j(()-"'* ! # /"**, 392 Mass 445, 466

N.E.2d 828 (1984).

THE DEFENDANT,
BY COUNSEL,

______________________________
Terrence M. Dunphy, Esquire
81 State Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01103
1-413-732-3550, FAX 1-413-732-3552
BBO# 138760
AttorneyDunphy@comcast.net
Date: February 9, 2010
c

c
-3-c