COMMONWEALTII OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO: SUCR ~""'_U.JJ

SANDRA DOSTIE'S MOTION FOR A NEW 1RIAL, ALTER1'iATiVE, FORAN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

o

Massac~ Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 30, the Defendant cmremly saving a sentences of life committed to Mel Fmo:m~!Im. be!1ctrr moves this court to set aside the verdict returned in the

ctfc:ctJ.'1e ~it!Il31Dml~ of counsel and her right to a zealous. fair and untJ118SC~ 00UI1lSd DUl:S'08lflt 10 the Fifth and Sinh Amendments of the Constitution of the '-' ...... ,~

the lights of Sandra Dostie were violated and her defense lVUU!~ofthe defendzmt's trial counsel, Janice Healy, (Healy)

dls(~:d the defmdmt' 3 privileged confidences and secrets to a reporter Boston

1

ddemlet was ~ at the time that the offense was committed and sunereo DlIIC!ilW. ........ ~ brought on the pregnancy.

aelJeD<l1aDl gave binh mn:ncdmteJ}' before trial was commented and 'WaS

~wty dCllilW a oontinwmce on medical and mental health conditions ..

3.

ddeDdlant·s d«~tmsc: was paid for by her parents and the defendant with

prejgDaocy during the trial and up to the time of her I""..\"1''U"II.t'1r.'''' .... and

5.

dclmd~ felt UDCOmfurtable with Healy and could not understand was DOt zealous her defeese,

condition could not adequately assist counsel who a

intp1I"II"d and who severely SD,d ~arably harmed

1.

deti:ndaDt aILaCnItS a letter from Ross to Healy which acknowledges the improprieties on the part of Healy

aeJ:eJMJlmt abo an article published in Boston Magazine by

the infmmation obtain through Healy's betrayal of the client

lJeltencLml Sandra Dostie respectfully requests that this Court granted

a New or, the Alternative, for an Evidentiary Hearing.

~attomey~~

Sandra Bloomenthal Bloomentbal & Bloomenthal, PA 13 Felton Street

W81dwn. MA 02451 BBON551510

(781) 891-0509

COMMONWEALlH OF MASSACHUSETIS

SUPERIOR COURT DOCKETNO:SUCR

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

SANDRA DOSTIE'S MOTION FORA NEW TRIAL, TIm ALTERNATIVE. FORAN EVIDENTIARY HE.A.RmG

FACTS

t'IBlWDgl~. after She

convicted of the Second Degree Murder of her step

a new trial on the grounds of flagrant violations

right to ... Hlf'~J'1I!i' ~ of COODSeI and her right to a zealous, fair and unbiased COQII.'Ild pmS.1II to the Fifth aDd Sixth Amendment5 of the Constitution of the v~.,,, ........

miN·fi_-.1I evl(Jm(:e. a letter from a reporter to the defendant's

that Constitutional the rights of Sandra Dostie were violated her

ddmse 1m:jpa1lbly hmm:d by 1he oonduct of'tne defendant's trial counsel, Janice Healy, 'riohted the attorney client privilege and disclosed the defendant? s

Dn'll'IH':IIl',r:n CC:mDdallites and secrets to a reporter for Boston Magazine named Ross

W33 a neighbor and close friend of Healy.

r

(Jd~1ant was 'Pfelim&lDt at the ti::mc that the offense was committed. and suffered

severe mental brought on by the pregnancy. The defendant gave

imaJ~deJ.y before the mctll.lCal and mcllW

COIlw:DA~:!Q and was unfairly denied a continuance cosditions.

on

fur the defendant's legal expenses, The dcl'endant lived ~, during the trial md up to the time of her conviction and ,subscqll!eDt ~on.

DefeDdmt in her condition could not adequately

bad ill ~al conflict of interest and who severely and irreparably

ARGUMENT

.. ~_ ... ~ 4_ .. __ • ._~ ._.,. •••• • • .. • __

8 criminal proceeding is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel.

J.ql~maboo must be of any conflict of interest that would impair the defense.

(;OlllURiDII"'e.dUli Y. MMh.er, 920 N.E.ld ~5, 4SS Mus. 811 (2010) holds" the

l'-(M.idamtb Amcndmmts to the Constitution of the United States and art. 12 of Dec~tioo of Rights of the Commonwealth, criminal defendants have a right to the COUlDJJel UDimpai:red by loyalties to other clients. If Commonwealth v.

Mas3. 456» 451. 646 N.E.2d 10J (1995). See Glasser 11. United Stales, 315 86 LEd 680 (1942). Under Federal constitutional law, a edided ill new trial if he establishes that his attorney had an actual conflict

that conffict til adve:rsd:y affected his lawyer's performance," Cuyler v.

3S0~ 100 S.Ct 1708; 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). However, under art, defendant establishes an actual oonflict of interest, he is entitled to a new trial farlber showing; he need not demonstrate that the conflict adversely affected hIl1lll!_"'<tI: ped~ OJ: resulted in actwd prejudice. See Commonwealth v_ Shraiar,

''' __ .L_'_IAl! 689 (1986); Commonwealth v. Hodge. 386 Mass. 169-

1246 (I (12)- We require 00 further showing because, when an attorney cooffid of interest. the effect of the conflict on the attorney's representation den2llida1lt j., Ukdy to be ~ve and unpredictable, while the difficulty

1'IIIIII"'0111mt", be substmtial" " panirularly as to thmgs that may have been left not said COUDSet'" Commo:n:wuiJ1:h v. Hodge, SU]11'Q at 110; 434 N.E.2d

7

..

or gmume ronflict of mterest, however, must be one in which prejudice srmmOJD" such that no impartial observer could reasonably conclude

the defimdmt claims an actual ooDfiict arising from his attorney's prosecution wi.1:Dess. we have found an actual conflict only where (1) the defemie attorney ooatinued to represent a prosecution witness who DmISU::d :u:rt.I1elW ff:Stimooy conceming a critical issue in the case against the defendant; Gel~:nse attomr::y hall previously represented a prosecution witness in a matter defeodant"s aimmal case who furnished material testimony concerning a in.1be esse ap.iDst the de:fendm.t. See Commonwealth v. Waltef', supra at cases cited Compare Commonwealth 'V. Martinez, 425

681 N .E.2d 818 (1991) (actual cont1ict where defense counsel engaged .,,.ag ~w ofkq' prosccu1ion witness at time of trial on unrelated criminal

~v. Smith. 362 Mass. 782,183-184, 291 N.E.2d (1973)

CODltbct ~ previously terminated representation of key. prosecution

W'J.QiH:SS on um.dated matter). See also OJmmonwl!alth v. Geraway, 364 Mass. 183,

(1913) (T1llro. C.J .• and Braucher, J .• dissenting)

case at bar ~ the ult:imate in a oontlict of interest and breach of attorney counsel Healy ~yed Sandra Dostie in a most profound way. ~nII_"'" her secrets to II reporter. &aiy tainted the defense.

1he I>efmdmt Sandra Dostie n;spec1fully requests that this Court granted a New Trial in the Alternative, for an Evidentiary Hearing.

~C\

Sandra Bloomemhal

Blocmenthal &. Bloomentbal, PA 13 Felton Street

Waltham, MA 02451 BBO#551510

(181) 891-0509

in mood for a peace offering, but I want you had

ramifications you're so ronvincOO will befall you because

written it style I did.

it over, there's something else you need to know. Obviously, I'm nrY'i"U'V1_ specifiC details, but you were not the '"defense team" source to which I never considered you to actually be Sandy's defense

a Vf!lY normal, advisory capacity while Frank was recovering. Did

ii'VV~1r""'2ti.nw1i<ll> caTOborate some of the material I'd ooard?-yes--ware the sole

Absolutely In effect. you're taking a lot of responsibility for

................. have it my story regardless of our conversations.

writing the story and our talks. I was keenly aware of the potential for DRJ~lSI(InallIbE~)08 wires cross, In writing the story, I actively discraded a you shared with me that I thought could be awkward for you.

r5lUOrlSnlip as neighbors and the mothers two good friends

sentence or What seems so ironic in this situation i~ how we

thought we were being helpful to each other.

lapoi~!:e help

this misunderstanding. Let me know if there's anything I can do to damage control is necessary.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSEITS

SlJl»:ERIO R ..__"-" 'L11I:'DOCKET NO:

OF MASSACHUSEITS

AfFIDAVIT OF SANDRA DOST I E.

of offense. I was .suffering from severe pregnancy induced

counsel. Jams Healy bdrayed my trust by disclosing everything about

COOIlml to Pippin Ross, a reporter for Boston Magazine.

talk without knowledge and consent about my case.

bad known the ... ramifications" that would've befallen counsel

becmse of the breach of attomey client privilege and the disclosure trial

H.

Ross even admits to censoring iaformanon gathered from trial

admits that the two were neighbors.and the mothers of two children

-

I not truSt my attorney and that information was being leaked to

I was justified in believing that I could not confide in my attorney who was my

16.1

'!r_,nr~ ~vc mental health care while incarcerated which helped

actions and understmd that I was' severely at

- f)ec_

pains and ~ ofpeIjmy this -r- day o~, 2010.

"

e w:

Defendm.t do certify that I today sent it Affidavits and 8 Certificate of Service to: