40 N.E.3d 1015
Mass.2015Background
- Defendant Pierre Cadet was convicted in 2007 of first‑degree murder (extreme atrocity or cruelty) for the 2004 stabbing death of his girlfriend, Betina Francois; he admitted stabbing her but claimed self‑defense after she allegedly attacked him with knives.
- Evidence at trial: victim stabbed nine times, multiple potentially fatal wounds; defendant had significant neck and other wounds inconsistent with a motor vehicle crash; mixed DNA and blood evidence in apartment and in the SUV defendant later crashed; a note by defendant expressing despair was found near the body.
- Defendant testified he was attacked by the victim, grabbed a knife from her, and stabbed her to stop the attack; he then left in the victim’s SUV and crashed in Rhode Island.
- Postconviction, while appeal pending, defendant moved for a new trial raising ineffective assistance claims and that the courtroom was closed during jury empanelment; the motion judge (who had presided at trial) held an evidentiary hearing limited to the closure claim and denied the motion in full.
- The trial judge found (after hearing) that the courtroom had not been closed during empanelment, rejected the defendant’s affidavits as not credible, and concluded that prosecutorial improprieties and some trial counsel deficiencies, though present, did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Cadet) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public‑trial violation by courtroom closure during jury empanelment | No closure occurred; empanelment complied with law | Courtroom closed to public during empanelment, denying public‑trial right | Motion judge credited record and denied claim; no new trial (no closure shown) |
| Use of term “victim” and pejorative labels in prosecutor’s argument | Usage did not prejudice because killing undisputed and jury instructions protected fairness | Term “victim” and repeated “monster” prejudged issues, undermined presumption of innocence | Use of term and some rhetoric improper but not so prejudicial as to require reversal |
| Exclusion of hearsay statements by deceased for state‑of‑mind purposes | Judge properly limited admission of victim’s out‑of‑court statements under evidentiary rules | Exclusion prevented defendant from showing victim’s enraged state of mind and impaired his right to present a defense | Judge’s rulings upheld; defendant failed to show ruling or counsel’s conduct was unreasonable |
| Ineffective assistance (various failures including not objecting to prosecutor, handling of medical evidence) | Some prosecutorial excesses occurred but evidence was overwhelming; counsel’s errors not prejudicial | Trial counsel’s errors (failure to object, mischaracterizing injuries, not proffering statements) denied effective assistance requiring a new trial | Some counsel performance fell below standard, but errors not so prejudicial given overwhelming evidence; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (public‑trial right applies to voir dire and empanelment)
- Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.) (public‑trial right extends to jury empanelment)
- Commonwealth v. Rosario, 460 Mass. 181 (discusses prejudice standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
- Commonwealth v. Buckman, 461 Mass. 24 (public‑trial burden on defendant to show courtroom closure)
- Commonwealth v. Qualls, 425 Mass. 163 (state‑of‑mind exception to hearsay rule)
- Commonwealth v. Bolling, 462 Mass. 440 (instruction on mitigating circumstances and burden when self‑defense asserted)
- Commonwealth v. Santos, 454 Mass. 770 (instructions inadequate where burden issues arise in self‑defense context)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (standard for reversal based on prosecutorial misconduct)
- Commonwealth v. Scesny, 472 Mass. 185 (recent guidance on prosecutor rhetoric and prejudice)