Commonwealth of Massachusetts County of Hampshire The Superior Court CRIMINAL DOCKET# HSCR1994-00093 RE: Commonwealth v Dostie, Sandra TO:Sandra F Bloomenthal, Esquire Bloomenthal & Bloomenthal 13 Felton Street Waltham, MA 02451 CLERK'S NOTICE This is to notify you that in the above referenced case the Court's action on 04/29/2011 is as follows: Defendant's motion for new trial or, and the alternative, for an evidentiary hearing along with Affidavit and Memorandum in Support MOTION (P#90) denied (Constance M. Sweeney) The defendant's motion for a new trial is Denied. Almost 16 years after the conviction for murdering her stepson, the defendant seeks a new trial on unsupported grounds that one of her defense attorneys imparted unspecified privileged communications to a reporter for Boston Magazine. A letter, which the defendant claims was written by the reporter to one of the defense attorneys, does not assist the defendant. The author of the letter writes that the defense attorney in question was not part of the "defense team" to whom the Boston Magazine attributed certain information regarding the case. Indeed the author of the letter states that she was aware of the potential for "wires to cross" and took care to avoid that from occurring. The defendant fails to provide any credible basis for her allegation that one of her attorney's violated the ethical obligations attendant on the attorney-client relationship. Moreover she fails to suggest any nexus between the alleged breach of confidentiality and her conviction. It is apparent from the roughly cobbled motion and memorandum that the defendant is using this unfounded allegation to gain a new trial and then present a defense of lack of criminal responsibility. She was well represented at trial, particularly by her highly experienced and skilled chief trial counsel, who is not the attorney implicated in the motion. Evidently the defendant now wants the jury to believe that she was in a psychotic state when she killed the little boy, Eric Dostie. During trial she swore under oath that she had not killed the child but rather that she and Eric were victimized by unidentified intruder(s). The jury chose to believe compelling evidence that she killed the child because she resented the fiscal strain placed on the family because of child support payments. The evidence revealed that the defendant hatched an elaborate plan to murder the child and an even more elaborate plan to deflect suspicion away from her. She is not entitled to nor does she deserve a new trial. Copies mailed April 29, 2011.