WEBVTT
1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.540
SJC-13344.
2
00:00:03.540 --> 00:00:05.820
Commonwealth versus Dewane M. Tse.
3
00:00:06.917 --> 00:00:08.940
Attorney Sheketoff.
4
00:00:08.940 --> 00:00:10.740
Good morning, Your Honors.
5
00:00:10.740 --> 00:00:11.610
Robert Sheketoff
6
00:00:11.610 --> 00:00:14.403
for the defendant appellant Dewane Tse.
7
00:00:18.840 --> 00:00:20.250
I raise only one issue
8
00:00:20.250 --> 00:00:23.103
that the motion for required finding of not guilty,
9
00:00:24.600 --> 00:00:25.563
I believe,
10
00:00:26.520 --> 00:00:28.720
and this court will correct me if I'm wrong,
11
00:00:29.640 --> 00:00:33.150
that this case is controlled by your recent decision
12
00:00:33.150 --> 00:00:34.803
in Commonwealth versus Baez.
13
00:00:37.140 --> 00:00:37.983
In any event,
14
00:00:40.290 --> 00:00:43.750
the Commonwealth conceded in its opening statement
15
00:00:45.450 --> 00:00:48.960
that their theory of the case
16
00:00:48.960 --> 00:00:51.600
was that the defendant was the driver
17
00:00:51.600 --> 00:00:55.090
of the vehicle that the shooter got out of
18
00:00:56.670 --> 00:00:59.013
and then shot the victims.
19
00:01:02.850 --> 00:01:07.410
And in order to get a conviction on that theory,
20
00:01:07.410 --> 00:01:10.440
they would have to show that my client
21
00:01:10.440 --> 00:01:12.990
was in fact the driver,
22
00:01:12.990 --> 00:01:16.930
that in fact the car that they focused on
23
00:01:18.420 --> 00:01:19.590
that he had rented.
24
00:01:19.590 --> 00:01:21.780
So if we cut to the chase
25
00:01:21.780 --> 00:01:23.340
in a light most favorable
26
00:01:23.340 --> 00:01:25.350
in looking at Baez and Baxter,
27
00:01:25.350 --> 00:01:27.250
which are really the cases
28
00:01:28.320 --> 00:01:29.733
I think in everyone's mind,
29
00:01:31.080 --> 00:01:33.240
can we say in a light most favorable
30
00:01:33.240 --> 00:01:35.580
you lose on participation
31
00:01:35.580 --> 00:01:38.700
given the GPS and the car coordinates,
32
00:01:38.700 --> 00:01:41.520
but your issue is on shared lethal intent?
33
00:01:41.520 --> 00:01:44.220
So I think that is my best issue,
34
00:01:44.220 --> 00:01:45.900
shared legal intent,
35
00:01:45.900 --> 00:01:48.556
but I don't think I lose (laughing)
36
00:01:48.556 --> 00:01:50.988
on the participation either.
Convince us then, I guess.
37
00:01:50.988 --> 00:01:53.400
Okay, this is why.
38
00:01:53.400 --> 00:01:56.340
This car rented from Maven,
39
00:01:56.340 --> 00:01:58.530
which was some sort of car-sharing service
40
00:01:58.530 --> 00:01:59.973
that doesn't exist anymore,
41
00:02:02.460 --> 00:02:06.690
requires a cellphone of the person that rents it,
42
00:02:06.690 --> 00:02:08.820
this is the testimony at trial,
43
00:02:08.820 --> 00:02:09.873
to turn it on.
44
00:02:11.190 --> 00:02:14.730
So if I'm gonna loan this car to somebody
45
00:02:14.730 --> 00:02:16.950
as the person that rented it,
46
00:02:16.950 --> 00:02:19.080
I have to give 'em my cellphone too.
47
00:02:19.080 --> 00:02:21.210
Otherwise you can't turn the car on.
48
00:02:21.210 --> 00:02:22.410
And in this case,
49
00:02:22.410 --> 00:02:25.350
the car was turned off
50
00:02:25.350 --> 00:02:27.363
immediately after the shooting,
51
00:02:28.290 --> 00:02:33.290
and it stayed off for approximately 25 minutes,
52
00:02:33.537 --> 00:02:35.760
and then it was turned on again.
53
00:02:35.760 --> 00:02:37.140
When it's turned on again,
54
00:02:37.140 --> 00:02:40.320
it's found some distance,
55
00:02:40.320 --> 00:02:41.820
but not that far distance,
56
00:02:41.820 --> 00:02:45.150
from where the shooting took place.
57
00:02:45.150 --> 00:02:49.803
So no one saw anyone in this car.
58
00:02:51.750 --> 00:02:53.640
There's video of the car,
59
00:02:53.640 --> 00:02:56.650
Obviously I would suggest the Commonwealth
60
00:02:57.660 --> 00:02:59.430
can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt,
61
00:02:59.430 --> 00:03:01.353
following the victim's car.
62
00:03:03.510 --> 00:03:05.970
But it's unclear who was in that car.
63
00:03:05.970 --> 00:03:08.640
You have two bookends of him renting the car.
64
00:03:08.640 --> 00:03:10.680
At least he's on video, right?
65
00:03:10.680 --> 00:03:11.850
Right, but one is--
66
00:03:11.850 --> 00:03:13.350
Renting the car and returning the car.
67
00:03:13.350 --> 00:03:15.933
Right, one is him renting the car.
68
00:03:17.490 --> 00:03:18.840
Arguably it's him,
69
00:03:18.840 --> 00:03:20.400
you can't really tell for sure,
70
00:03:20.400 --> 00:03:23.760
but someone similar to him
71
00:03:23.760 --> 00:03:26.280
renting the car two days earlier
72
00:03:26.280 --> 00:03:30.330
and returning it an hour afterwards.
73
00:03:30.330 --> 00:03:31.163
Can I ask about the two days earlier
74
00:03:31.163 --> 00:03:32.850
'cause?
After the shooting.
75
00:03:32.850 --> 00:03:34.560
I'm sorry.
After the shooting, yeah.
76
00:03:34.560 --> 00:03:35.520
Can I ask?
77
00:03:35.520 --> 00:03:37.590
There's a statement in the Commonwealth's brief
78
00:03:37.590 --> 00:03:40.057
that I'm gonna ask your sister about,
79
00:03:40.057 --> 00:03:41.850
"But the gray car
80
00:03:41.850 --> 00:03:44.397
eventually drove away without this person."
81
00:03:47.952 --> 00:03:50.310
Does the person who rent the car
82
00:03:50.310 --> 00:03:53.340
transfer the car and the key
83
00:03:53.340 --> 00:03:56.493
to someone else on August 12th?
84
00:03:57.630 --> 00:03:59.880
Is that what that statement is saying?
85
00:03:59.880 --> 00:04:02.640
There's a reference, I read the transcript references
86
00:04:02.640 --> 00:04:03.810
and the exhibit references,
87
00:04:03.810 --> 00:04:05.310
I can't follow it,
88
00:04:05.310 --> 00:04:06.720
'cause you have to watch the video,
89
00:04:06.720 --> 00:04:07.950
which I haven't done yet.
90
00:04:07.950 --> 00:04:10.233
Okay, (laughing)
91
00:04:13.200 --> 00:04:14.970
there's no evidence in the case
92
00:04:14.970 --> 00:04:17.580
that he was driving the car
93
00:04:17.580 --> 00:04:19.110
and there's (laughing) no evidence in the case
94
00:04:19.110 --> 00:04:20.130
that he loaned the car.
Well, it's a very
95
00:04:20.130 --> 00:04:21.510
particular question.
96
00:04:21.510 --> 00:04:23.460
Yeah, there's no--
On August 12th,
97
00:04:24.360 --> 00:04:27.600
I think the evidence is he rented the car.
98
00:04:27.600 --> 00:04:30.750
But when I read her brief,
99
00:04:30.750 --> 00:04:34.170
it suggests that he transfers the car
100
00:04:34.170 --> 00:04:36.810
to somebody else on August 12th,
101
00:04:36.810 --> 00:04:38.390
but I may be misreading the brief.
102
00:04:38.390 --> 00:04:40.950
So I don't think that's the Commonwealth's position,
103
00:04:40.950 --> 00:04:43.140
but they can speak for themselves.
104
00:04:43.140 --> 00:04:46.860
There's just no evidence on this topic
105
00:04:46.860 --> 00:04:50.490
of whether he ever loaned the car to somebody else
106
00:04:50.490 --> 00:04:53.400
or was driving it on the date in question because--
107
00:04:53.400 --> 00:04:54.990
But, Counsel, I mean, and again,
108
00:04:54.990 --> 00:04:56.430
I know you're saying you're not giving up
109
00:04:56.430 --> 00:04:58.230
the participation prong,
110
00:04:58.230 --> 00:05:01.860
which I don't think is a very strong argument for you.
111
00:05:01.860 --> 00:05:05.577
But nevertheless, you still have CSLI from the phone
112
00:05:08.130 --> 00:05:10.650
that's attributable to your client
113
00:05:10.650 --> 00:05:14.313
in the area before the shooting.
114
00:05:15.210 --> 00:05:16.440
That's correct, Your Honor.
115
00:05:16.440 --> 00:05:19.530
But in the circumstances of this case,
116
00:05:19.530 --> 00:05:22.260
if I'm gonna loan this car to somebody,
117
00:05:22.260 --> 00:05:24.423
I also have to give 'em my cellphone.
118
00:05:25.350 --> 00:05:27.720
I thought you had to just download an app
119
00:05:27.720 --> 00:05:29.250
on to your own cellphone.
120
00:05:29.250 --> 00:05:31.020
Maybe I've mistaken the facts there.
121
00:05:31.020 --> 00:05:36.020
So whatever we might think of this testimony,
122
00:05:37.200 --> 00:05:39.363
the testimony is actually clear,
123
00:05:42.060 --> 00:05:44.310
according to the Maven expert,
124
00:05:44.310 --> 00:05:47.670
in order to turn this car on and off
125
00:05:47.670 --> 00:05:49.710
after downloading the app,
126
00:05:49.710 --> 00:05:53.400
you need the cellphone that downloaded the app.
127
00:05:53.400 --> 00:05:56.610
It connects to that phone number.
128
00:05:56.610 --> 00:05:58.380
So it--
So just
129
00:05:58.380 --> 00:05:59.490
to follow the thought,
130
00:05:59.490 --> 00:06:01.920
why can't that be the defendant's phone?
131
00:06:01.920 --> 00:06:02.965
Well, it is the defendant's phone.
132
00:06:02.965 --> 00:06:04.110
Oh, okay, all right, I thought
133
00:06:04.110 --> 00:06:04.943
you were suggesting it was-
I'm not saying it's not
134
00:06:04.943 --> 00:06:05.970
the defendant's phone.
somebody else's.
135
00:06:05.970 --> 00:06:07.980
I'm saying that if he loans
136
00:06:07.980 --> 00:06:09.720
the car to somebody--
He owns the phone
137
00:06:09.720 --> 00:06:10.620
and owns the car?
138
00:06:10.620 --> 00:06:11.490
Yes.
The phone being
139
00:06:11.490 --> 00:06:12.660
the key essentially.
140
00:06:12.660 --> 00:06:15.030
The phone is the key to the car.
141
00:06:15.030 --> 00:06:18.540
You can't turn the car on and off without the phone.
142
00:06:18.540 --> 00:06:21.303
And this car is turned on and off.
143
00:06:22.440 --> 00:06:24.190
In fact, (laughing) it's turned off
144
00:06:25.530 --> 00:06:28.080
right at the exact moment of the shooting,
145
00:06:28.080 --> 00:06:31.590
and stays off for 20-something minutes.
146
00:06:31.590 --> 00:06:36.000
No one sees my client in that car that day.
147
00:06:36.000 --> 00:06:39.030
There is a picture of someone
148
00:06:39.030 --> 00:06:40.950
that resembles my client
149
00:06:40.950 --> 00:06:43.590
returning the car an hour after the shooting.
150
00:06:43.590 --> 00:06:47.190
No one ever sees a second person in the car, ever.
151
00:06:47.190 --> 00:06:50.160
No one sees a person leave that car
152
00:06:50.160 --> 00:06:51.870
and walk down the street.
153
00:06:51.870 --> 00:06:53.820
That's inference on inference.
154
00:06:53.820 --> 00:06:56.190
And no one sees the shooter
155
00:06:56.190 --> 00:06:57.513
get back into the car.
156
00:06:59.340 --> 00:07:01.950
Whether this car was involved in any way
157
00:07:01.950 --> 00:07:04.800
other than following this vehicle is,
158
00:07:04.800 --> 00:07:06.603
I suggest, speculation.
159
00:07:07.830 --> 00:07:09.060
Okay, I know you're gonna say
160
00:07:09.060 --> 00:07:10.140
that you can minimize this,
161
00:07:10.140 --> 00:07:12.060
but again, the framework still is
162
00:07:12.060 --> 00:07:14.790
in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
163
00:07:14.790 --> 00:07:18.330
You also have, when the police went to go interview him,
164
00:07:18.330 --> 00:07:22.740
he conceded that he's rented Acadias before,
165
00:07:22.740 --> 00:07:23.790
both blue and red.
166
00:07:23.790 --> 00:07:25.320
And again, I know you're gonna say
167
00:07:25.320 --> 00:07:27.000
that that doesn't amount to anything
168
00:07:27.000 --> 00:07:29.520
other than inference upon inference upon inference,
169
00:07:29.520 --> 00:07:31.830
but at least with the participation part,
170
00:07:31.830 --> 00:07:33.480
I think we all really are interested
171
00:07:33.480 --> 00:07:35.340
in the shared legal,
172
00:07:35.340 --> 00:07:36.930
we get your point on that,
173
00:07:36.930 --> 00:07:39.900
the shared lethal intent part
174
00:07:39.900 --> 00:07:42.903
is the part that really is where the rubber hits the road.
175
00:07:43.800 --> 00:07:47.010
I know we say that there's Baxter and there's Baez,
176
00:07:47.010 --> 00:07:49.470
but here the Commonwealth lays out
177
00:07:49.470 --> 00:07:51.450
through the surveillance videos,
178
00:07:51.450 --> 00:07:52.980
through the CSLI,
179
00:07:52.980 --> 00:07:55.260
through the information
180
00:07:55.260 --> 00:07:57.810
with respect to who rented it
181
00:07:57.810 --> 00:07:59.760
and what was done right after
182
00:07:59.760 --> 00:08:02.973
an hour after the shooting that it was returned.
183
00:08:03.840 --> 00:08:06.180
Why isn't this a little bit more
184
00:08:06.180 --> 00:08:08.940
than what we had in Baxter and Baez?
185
00:08:08.940 --> 00:08:12.090
So I would suggest it's a little bit less
186
00:08:12.090 --> 00:08:13.800
than you had in Baxter and Baez,
187
00:08:13.800 --> 00:08:15.300
because there's no evidence.
188
00:08:15.300 --> 00:08:17.940
First of all, in terms of returning the car,
189
00:08:17.940 --> 00:08:20.190
it had to be returned that day.
190
00:08:20.190 --> 00:08:21.900
Maybe it's a couple of hours early,
191
00:08:21.900 --> 00:08:24.603
but it had to be returned that day.
192
00:08:25.800 --> 00:08:29.250
There's no motive for my client.
193
00:08:29.250 --> 00:08:33.510
There's no evidence of who the second person was,
194
00:08:33.510 --> 00:08:34.620
what my client's,
195
00:08:34.620 --> 00:08:37.110
assuming it was him that was driving,
196
00:08:37.110 --> 00:08:38.730
what my client's relationship
197
00:08:38.730 --> 00:08:39.750
with that person would be.
198
00:08:39.750 --> 00:08:42.180
There's no suggestion that that person
199
00:08:42.180 --> 00:08:47.180
ever said anything about wanting to kill this person.
200
00:08:47.460 --> 00:08:51.210
There's no evidence that a gun was shown to my client.
201
00:08:51.210 --> 00:08:53.910
There's no evidence that there was any talk
202
00:08:53.910 --> 00:08:56.700
about doing anything to this person
203
00:08:56.700 --> 00:08:57.873
before it happened.
204
00:08:59.220 --> 00:09:00.750
And there's no evidence
205
00:09:00.750 --> 00:09:03.900
that the shooter got back into the car afterwards.
206
00:09:03.900 --> 00:09:06.540
I think Baez is a stronger case
207
00:09:06.540 --> 00:09:09.090
for the Commonwealth than this case is,
208
00:09:09.090 --> 00:09:12.813
because in Baez, he clearly picked up,
209
00:09:14.130 --> 00:09:17.820
in the light most favorable to the government,
210
00:09:17.820 --> 00:09:20.640
he clearly picked up the two shooters
211
00:09:20.640 --> 00:09:22.413
after the shooting.
212
00:09:24.750 --> 00:09:27.930
So I don't see any basis
213
00:09:27.930 --> 00:09:32.930
for inferring a lethal intent for my client.
214
00:09:33.390 --> 00:09:35.010
As this court has said before,
215
00:09:35.010 --> 00:09:37.410
even if you can infer an intent
216
00:09:37.410 --> 00:09:40.380
to do some sort of harm to the victim,
217
00:09:40.380 --> 00:09:43.080
in order to get a first-degree murder conviction,
218
00:09:43.080 --> 00:09:46.110
or armed, or assault with intent to murder conviction,
219
00:09:46.110 --> 00:09:48.120
you have to show a lethal intent.
220
00:09:48.120 --> 00:09:52.263
There is just total guesswork to suggest that,
221
00:09:53.790 --> 00:09:54.623
I would argue.
222
00:09:59.744 --> 00:10:01.830
(Robert laughing)
223
00:10:01.830 --> 00:10:05.700
So I can't emphasize enough (laughing)
224
00:10:05.700 --> 00:10:09.300
that in the unique circumstances of this case,
225
00:10:09.300 --> 00:10:14.300
the CSLI does not put my client at the scene
226
00:10:16.290 --> 00:10:18.630
because if he loaned the car to somebody,
227
00:10:18.630 --> 00:10:22.170
which is a common phenomenon.
228
00:10:22.170 --> 00:10:27.170
In Swafford, Mr. Gittens was the owner of the car,
229
00:10:29.340 --> 00:10:32.670
and that was not enough
230
00:10:32.670 --> 00:10:34.110
because no one could say
231
00:10:34.110 --> 00:10:38.013
that the driver looked like Mr. Gittens.
232
00:10:39.150 --> 00:10:41.763
And Gittens had a motive in that case.
233
00:10:47.160 --> 00:10:51.570
I suggest that you can't even put my client in the car,
234
00:10:51.570 --> 00:10:54.150
and you certainly can't put the shooter in the car.
235
00:10:54.150 --> 00:10:56.070
But I concede that my best argument
236
00:10:56.070 --> 00:10:58.563
is the state of mind.
237
00:11:00.720 --> 00:11:02.650
Thank you. (laughing)
238
00:11:02.650 --> 00:11:03.663
Okay, thank you.
239
00:11:07.380 --> 00:11:08.283
Attorney Paris.
240
00:11:14.753 --> 00:11:17.503
(pages rustling)
241
00:11:25.080 --> 00:11:26.310
Good morning, may it please the court,
242
00:11:26.310 --> 00:11:27.990
Molly Paris on behalf of the Commonwealth
243
00:11:27.990 --> 00:11:29.280
asking that this court affirm
244
00:11:29.280 --> 00:11:30.480
the defendant's convictions.
245
00:11:30.480 --> 00:11:32.430
I'd like to start out by distinguishing this case
246
00:11:32.430 --> 00:11:33.390
from Baxter and their--
247
00:11:33.390 --> 00:11:35.550
Can you just start out with a fact question?
248
00:11:35.550 --> 00:11:37.620
I just don't know what you're saying on page 18
249
00:11:37.620 --> 00:11:38.553
of your brief.
250
00:11:39.540 --> 00:11:41.190
Are you saying that?
251
00:11:41.190 --> 00:11:42.023
I just don't know what it means,
252
00:11:42.023 --> 00:11:45.210
"The gray car eventually drove away without this person."
253
00:11:45.210 --> 00:11:46.890
Does that video show
254
00:11:46.890 --> 00:11:49.620
that somebody else went off with the car
255
00:11:49.620 --> 00:11:50.970
after he rented it?
256
00:11:50.970 --> 00:11:53.010
So, no, what the video shows
257
00:11:53.010 --> 00:11:54.930
is a gray car pulling into the front
258
00:11:54.930 --> 00:11:56.580
of the Government Center Garage,
259
00:11:56.580 --> 00:11:59.070
the defendant exiting the car,
260
00:11:59.070 --> 00:12:01.920
leaning forward to speak with whoever was driving.
261
00:12:01.920 --> 00:12:03.750
And then the defendant then walks
262
00:12:03.750 --> 00:12:04.920
into the Government Center Garage,
263
00:12:04.920 --> 00:12:06.420
and there's video captured of him
264
00:12:06.420 --> 00:12:09.720
walking down the hallway past the kiosk.
265
00:12:09.720 --> 00:12:11.231
So that gray car is just someone
266
00:12:11.231 --> 00:12:12.160
who dropped him off.
So it's not the car
267
00:12:12.160 --> 00:12:12.993
we're dealing with,
268
00:12:12.993 --> 00:12:14.370
it's a totally separate car,
269
00:12:14.370 --> 00:12:15.674
right?
Exactly, totally separate.
270
00:12:15.674 --> 00:12:16.507
I just got confused.
Yeah,
271
00:12:16.507 --> 00:12:19.560
and that's at about 2:16 on August 12th,
272
00:12:19.560 --> 00:12:20.730
two days before the murder
273
00:12:20.730 --> 00:12:22.780
and about five minutes before the rental.
274
00:12:24.150 --> 00:12:25.590
So turning to the three reasons
275
00:12:25.590 --> 00:12:27.750
why this case is factually distinguishable,
276
00:12:27.750 --> 00:12:29.430
the first is that the defendant
277
00:12:29.430 --> 00:12:32.090
was hunting the victims for about 2 1/2 hours
278
00:12:32.090 --> 00:12:36.510
in Mattapan Square prior to spotting the victims.
279
00:12:36.510 --> 00:12:38.400
The second is the aggressive following,
280
00:12:38.400 --> 00:12:40.680
the pursuit from Mattapan Square,
281
00:12:40.680 --> 00:12:42.810
up Blue Hill Avenue, to Deering Road.
282
00:12:42.810 --> 00:12:44.550
And the third is that the shooter
283
00:12:44.550 --> 00:12:45.960
was outnumbered two to one.
284
00:12:45.960 --> 00:12:50.960
But in Baez, we had this hunting down, right?
285
00:12:51.800 --> 00:12:53.977
So if my memory...
286
00:12:53.977 --> 00:12:55.560
"Baez," I mean Baxter, (laughing)
287
00:12:55.560 --> 00:12:58.380
we had hunting down essentially, right?
288
00:12:58.380 --> 00:12:59.490
Yes, Your Honor.
289
00:12:59.490 --> 00:13:00.323
But in that case,
290
00:13:00.323 --> 00:13:02.970
the court found that the maneuvering alone was insufficient,
291
00:13:02.970 --> 00:13:05.670
and here the Commonwealth's position--
292
00:13:05.670 --> 00:13:07.920
You have longer maneuvering in this case
293
00:13:07.920 --> 00:13:10.980
versus the maneuvering in Baxter.
294
00:13:10.980 --> 00:13:13.410
Exactly, it's not only longer in terms of time,
295
00:13:13.410 --> 00:13:15.450
but in terms of geographic location.
296
00:13:15.450 --> 00:13:16.500
If you look at the maps,
297
00:13:16.500 --> 00:13:18.960
you can see the relation from where
298
00:13:18.960 --> 00:13:20.430
Mattapan Square is.
But how is that relevant
299
00:13:20.430 --> 00:13:23.011
for lethal intent when it could be relevant
300
00:13:23.011 --> 00:13:25.980
to intent to do some type of harm?
301
00:13:25.980 --> 00:13:28.080
Well, it's relevant when you take it in conjunction
302
00:13:28.080 --> 00:13:31.080
with the fact the shooter is outnumbered two to one.
303
00:13:31.080 --> 00:13:33.450
And as this court found in Baxter and Baez,
304
00:13:33.450 --> 00:13:35.430
in those cases, the shooter and victim,
305
00:13:35.430 --> 00:13:36.600
it was a one-to-one ratio
306
00:13:36.600 --> 00:13:38.580
and both were on foot.
307
00:13:38.580 --> 00:13:39.510
And the court expressed--
308
00:13:39.510 --> 00:13:41.310
Baxter, there were two
309
00:13:42.539 --> 00:13:43.372
co-defendants-
There were two shooters,
310
00:13:43.372 --> 00:13:46.380
yeah, right.
who ultimately killed
311
00:13:46.380 --> 00:13:48.000
the victim.
312
00:13:48.000 --> 00:13:49.530
I believe there was one shooter who--
313
00:13:49.530 --> 00:13:51.870
And there was a witness that testified
314
00:13:51.870 --> 00:13:52.980
that there were two people
315
00:13:52.980 --> 00:13:54.750
that ran back to the car,
316
00:13:54.750 --> 00:13:56.430
and one got into the passenger seat,
317
00:13:56.430 --> 00:13:57.390
one got into the back.
318
00:13:57.390 --> 00:13:59.790
So there were two people on the street.
319
00:13:59.790 --> 00:14:01.380
But irrespective of that,
320
00:14:01.380 --> 00:14:05.760
going back to Baxter
321
00:14:05.760 --> 00:14:08.463
and the point that Justice Gaziano made,
322
00:14:09.300 --> 00:14:12.300
all of these things that you point out in your brief
323
00:14:12.300 --> 00:14:14.940
distinguish this case from Baxter,
324
00:14:14.940 --> 00:14:17.160
it's just maneuvering, right?
325
00:14:17.160 --> 00:14:18.360
I mean, it's maneuvering
326
00:14:18.360 --> 00:14:20.850
that you're putting an overlay in,
327
00:14:20.850 --> 00:14:23.190
but it's still maneuvering of the car
328
00:14:23.190 --> 00:14:25.353
and it's a little bit different than even,
329
00:14:28.110 --> 00:14:30.540
I'm blanking on the name that came after Baxter,
330
00:14:30.540 --> 00:14:31.373
the Appeals Court,
331
00:14:31.373 --> 00:14:33.600
it's different than,
332
00:14:33.600 --> 00:14:35.430
I think it was Saunders or Sanders,
333
00:14:35.430 --> 00:14:37.080
where at least in that case
334
00:14:37.080 --> 00:14:38.730
they said the maneuvering,
335
00:14:38.730 --> 00:14:40.860
you could still infer the lethal intent
336
00:14:40.860 --> 00:14:42.900
because whomever shot at the other car
337
00:14:42.900 --> 00:14:45.210
was in the car that maneuvered
338
00:14:45.210 --> 00:14:48.390
in the way of the people that were ultimately shot.
339
00:14:48.390 --> 00:14:50.070
This isn't a situation like that,
340
00:14:50.070 --> 00:14:52.530
where even if we give participation,
341
00:14:52.530 --> 00:14:54.390
the car drives up, maneuvers,
342
00:14:54.390 --> 00:14:56.460
somebody shoots from inside the Acadia,
343
00:14:56.460 --> 00:14:57.990
and then you drive off.
344
00:14:57.990 --> 00:14:59.490
Well, it's the aggressive maneuvering,
345
00:14:59.490 --> 00:15:01.890
plus when you take into conjunction the reconnaissance,
346
00:15:01.890 --> 00:15:04.530
which is what this court considered in Watson,
347
00:15:04.530 --> 00:15:06.540
and also again the two to one,
348
00:15:06.540 --> 00:15:08.730
which is the shooter being the one
349
00:15:08.730 --> 00:15:09.563
and the two victims
350
00:15:09.563 --> 00:15:10.530
in the car.
In Watson,
351
00:15:10.530 --> 00:15:12.662
there was a beef though, right?
352
00:15:12.662 --> 00:15:15.270
And there's no evidence of motive here.
353
00:15:15.270 --> 00:15:17.130
Correct, there's no evidence of motive.
354
00:15:17.130 --> 00:15:20.910
In Watson, I don't believe there was any evidence of motive.
355
00:15:20.910 --> 00:15:23.640
But regardless, just going back to the two to one,
356
00:15:23.640 --> 00:15:25.830
this court explicitly expressed concern
357
00:15:25.830 --> 00:15:28.200
at oral argument in Baxter
358
00:15:28.200 --> 00:15:30.360
that if there was a one-on-one,
359
00:15:30.360 --> 00:15:32.250
wouldn't that equally likely mean
360
00:15:32.250 --> 00:15:33.630
that it was a street fight
361
00:15:33.630 --> 00:15:35.190
as opposed to a shooting?
362
00:15:35.190 --> 00:15:37.320
And here what we have is the shooter
363
00:15:37.320 --> 00:15:39.120
running directly down,
364
00:15:39.120 --> 00:15:41.940
excuse me, walking directly down Deering Road,
365
00:15:41.940 --> 00:15:42.930
walking alone,
366
00:15:42.930 --> 00:15:44.640
firing directly into the Lexus,
367
00:15:44.640 --> 00:15:47.010
and then sprinting immediately up Deering Road,
368
00:15:47.010 --> 00:15:49.560
heading in the direction of Wellington Hill Street,
369
00:15:50.460 --> 00:15:53.430
seconds after the Acadia arrived on scene.
370
00:15:53.430 --> 00:15:54.630
And all of this happens
371
00:15:54.630 --> 00:15:59.630
while the GPS puts the Acadia outside of 85 Deering Road.
372
00:16:00.330 --> 00:16:02.610
So the jury--
What's the connection,
373
00:16:02.610 --> 00:16:06.120
if any, between the shooter and the Acadia?
374
00:16:06.120 --> 00:16:07.980
The connection is the close geographic
375
00:16:07.980 --> 00:16:09.210
and temporal proximity.
376
00:16:09.210 --> 00:16:10.740
So we know the Acadia turns
377
00:16:10.740 --> 00:16:12.030
onto Deering--
So we don't have
378
00:16:12.030 --> 00:16:14.430
the shooter coming out of the Acadia
379
00:16:14.430 --> 00:16:15.753
or jumping back in?
380
00:16:17.190 --> 00:16:18.420
We have video evidence
381
00:16:18.420 --> 00:16:20.190
of the shooter walking down Deering Road
382
00:16:20.190 --> 00:16:22.620
and then sprinting up immediately after the shooting.
383
00:16:22.620 --> 00:16:24.960
But not to and from the Acadia?
384
00:16:24.960 --> 00:16:27.120
No, but we have circumstantial evidence,
385
00:16:27.120 --> 00:16:28.680
and that's sufficient here.
386
00:16:28.680 --> 00:16:30.270
What we do have is video showing--
387
00:16:30.270 --> 00:16:32.490
In Baxter, we actually had the shooter
388
00:16:32.490 --> 00:16:34.860
coming out of the car
389
00:16:34.860 --> 00:16:37.560
and then running back into it.
390
00:16:37.560 --> 00:16:38.670
And the jury could infer
391
00:16:38.670 --> 00:16:40.290
that the shooter came from the car
392
00:16:40.290 --> 00:16:41.280
given that the Acadia
393
00:16:41.280 --> 00:16:42.960
turned onto Deering Road
394
00:16:42.960 --> 00:16:45.270
a little after 9:41 in the morning,
395
00:16:45.270 --> 00:16:48.360
is then seen passing 56 Deering Road at 9:42.
396
00:16:48.360 --> 00:16:49.380
Do we have any evidence
397
00:16:49.380 --> 00:16:53.163
about the number of cars at 9:30 in the morning?
398
00:16:54.300 --> 00:16:55.680
In terms of the number of cars--
399
00:16:55.680 --> 00:17:00.680
I mean, like was it a dark, desolate area?
400
00:17:00.744 --> 00:17:01.680
Any evidence of?
I believe maybe
401
00:17:01.680 --> 00:17:02.970
there was one other car
402
00:17:02.970 --> 00:17:06.030
shown on the several-minute video clip
403
00:17:06.030 --> 00:17:08.040
of 56 Deering Road.
404
00:17:08.040 --> 00:17:10.020
But an eyewitness testified
405
00:17:10.020 --> 00:17:12.270
that at the time there was no one else
406
00:17:12.270 --> 00:17:15.210
aside from the shooter who approached.
407
00:17:15.210 --> 00:17:17.100
So again, just to finish,
408
00:17:17.100 --> 00:17:20.040
after the Acadia passes 56 Deering Road,
409
00:17:20.040 --> 00:17:23.490
the GPS puts the Acadia outside of 85 Deering Road,
410
00:17:23.490 --> 00:17:26.880
which is just past the intersection of Deering Road
411
00:17:26.880 --> 00:17:28.200
and Wellington Hill Street,
412
00:17:28.200 --> 00:17:31.170
about half a block up, for three minutes.
413
00:17:31.170 --> 00:17:33.990
Then we see the shooter walking past,
414
00:17:33.990 --> 00:17:34.823
down Deering Road
415
00:17:34.823 --> 00:17:37.590
in the direction of Blue Hill Avenue
416
00:17:37.590 --> 00:17:40.290
at about 9:45 in the morning.
417
00:17:40.290 --> 00:17:41.700
And seconds after the shooting,
418
00:17:41.700 --> 00:17:43.530
we see him sprinting back up.
419
00:17:43.530 --> 00:17:46.020
And that's all corroborated by eyewitness testimony.
420
00:17:46.020 --> 00:17:47.880
Assume that we give you all of that though.
421
00:17:47.880 --> 00:17:50.670
Still, the issue is the lethal intent.
422
00:17:50.670 --> 00:17:52.560
I mean, we said in Baxter,
423
00:17:52.560 --> 00:17:54.250
perhaps the jury could infer
424
00:17:55.380 --> 00:17:57.690
that whomever was in the car driving
425
00:17:57.690 --> 00:18:00.180
intended something to happen
426
00:18:00.180 --> 00:18:02.850
to the person in that car,
427
00:18:02.850 --> 00:18:04.530
but what's the evidence
428
00:18:04.530 --> 00:18:06.720
that it was a lethal something
429
00:18:06.720 --> 00:18:08.820
to happen to that person in the car?
430
00:18:08.820 --> 00:18:10.350
We don't have all of the indicia
431
00:18:10.350 --> 00:18:11.910
that we've had in the other cases,
432
00:18:11.910 --> 00:18:13.470
where there was a gun,
433
00:18:13.470 --> 00:18:15.150
we know there was a motive,
434
00:18:15.150 --> 00:18:17.430
there was some other plus factor
435
00:18:17.430 --> 00:18:21.540
that was proven to infer the lethal intent.
436
00:18:21.540 --> 00:18:24.150
How do we get lethal intent here?
437
00:18:24.150 --> 00:18:25.560
We know it's lethal intent
438
00:18:25.560 --> 00:18:27.960
because there's two victims in the car,
439
00:18:27.960 --> 00:18:29.280
Darrell and Amado,
440
00:18:29.280 --> 00:18:30.720
and there's one shooter.
441
00:18:30.720 --> 00:18:33.510
And so the defendant stays at 85 Deering Road
442
00:18:33.510 --> 00:18:34.620
in this position of safety.
443
00:18:34.620 --> 00:18:36.240
He knows he doesn't have to get outta the car
444
00:18:36.240 --> 00:18:39.090
because it's gonna be a quick, lethal ambush.
445
00:18:39.090 --> 00:18:41.040
And also the shooter's at a disadvantage,
446
00:18:41.040 --> 00:18:41.880
he's on foot,
447
00:18:41.880 --> 00:18:44.760
relative to the two victims who are in the car,
448
00:18:44.760 --> 00:18:47.070
which makes it different from Baxter and Baez
449
00:18:47.070 --> 00:18:49.470
where the shooter and the victim are both on foot,
450
00:18:49.470 --> 00:18:51.390
they're on equal footing.
451
00:18:51.390 --> 00:18:52.980
So is the mathematics though,
452
00:18:52.980 --> 00:18:54.240
the only thing that?
453
00:18:54.240 --> 00:18:57.750
Because no one puts the shooter in the Acadia,
454
00:18:57.750 --> 00:19:00.120
no one puts the shooter in the Acadia
455
00:19:00.120 --> 00:19:01.563
after the shooting,
456
00:19:03.553 --> 00:19:05.340
and no one knows what happens
457
00:19:05.340 --> 00:19:07.260
to the shooter after, right?
458
00:19:07.260 --> 00:19:09.570
Because they released a canine,
459
00:19:09.570 --> 00:19:10.800
they couldn't find anyone,
460
00:19:10.800 --> 00:19:11.790
they never found the gun,
461
00:19:11.790 --> 00:19:13.620
they never found the other person.
462
00:19:13.620 --> 00:19:15.450
So how do we connect that math
463
00:19:15.450 --> 00:19:18.930
and wouldn't that be inference upon inference if we did?
464
00:19:18.930 --> 00:19:20.250
I mean, that's certainly an inference,
465
00:19:20.250 --> 00:19:21.083
but the Commonwealth
466
00:19:21.083 --> 00:19:22.830
doesn't have to disprove all inferences.
467
00:19:22.830 --> 00:19:24.120
The most reasonable inference
468
00:19:24.120 --> 00:19:26.850
is that where there is no one in the area of Deering Road,
469
00:19:26.850 --> 00:19:28.920
according to John McIsaac
470
00:19:28.920 --> 00:19:30.990
who was sitting outside of 34 Deering Road,
471
00:19:30.990 --> 00:19:34.170
which was about two or three car lengths beyond,
472
00:19:34.170 --> 00:19:35.430
closer to Blue Hill Avenue,
473
00:19:35.430 --> 00:19:37.350
but past the red Lexus,
474
00:19:37.350 --> 00:19:39.550
which was parked outside of 40 Deering Road.
475
00:19:41.670 --> 00:19:45.240
And what we have is the temporal
476
00:19:45.240 --> 00:19:48.079
and the geographic proximity, which is key,
477
00:19:48.079 --> 00:19:49.200
which is the closest thing
478
00:19:49.200 --> 00:19:50.670
we're getting to direct evidence,
479
00:19:50.670 --> 00:19:53.370
and circumstantial evidence is sufficient here.
480
00:19:53.370 --> 00:19:56.730
We have temporal proximity in all these cases.
481
00:19:56.730 --> 00:19:58.590
In Baxter and Baez too.
482
00:19:58.590 --> 00:20:00.843
They're right close by.
483
00:20:02.166 --> 00:20:03.300
And even in those cases,
484
00:20:03.300 --> 00:20:07.020
there's a relationship between, (laughing)
485
00:20:07.020 --> 00:20:09.570
there's a closer relationship between the driver
486
00:20:09.570 --> 00:20:11.220
and the people accused of being the shooter.
487
00:20:11.220 --> 00:20:13.085
Here, (laughing)
488
00:20:13.085 --> 00:20:15.030
they never found the shooter, right?
489
00:20:15.030 --> 00:20:16.560
It's just a total guess.
490
00:20:16.560 --> 00:20:17.393
That's correct.
By the way,
491
00:20:17.393 --> 00:20:18.450
does the video even show
492
00:20:18.450 --> 00:20:19.830
that there are two people in the car
493
00:20:19.830 --> 00:20:21.060
that's driving away?
494
00:20:21.060 --> 00:20:24.270
The video doesn't show who's in the car specifically.
495
00:20:24.270 --> 00:20:25.500
But again, we know that the--
496
00:20:25.500 --> 00:20:27.930
Does it even show that there are two people in the car
497
00:20:27.930 --> 00:20:30.540
as opposed to it could be just the shooter in the car?
498
00:20:30.540 --> 00:20:33.240
No, it doesn't, but we know that it's not just the shooter
499
00:20:33.240 --> 00:20:37.290
because, again, the GPS pings for the Acadia
500
00:20:37.290 --> 00:20:40.110
between 9:43 and 9:46 in the morning
501
00:20:40.110 --> 00:20:41.640
outside of 85 Deering Road,
502
00:20:41.640 --> 00:20:43.410
which is the same timeframe
503
00:20:43.410 --> 00:20:45.180
when we see the shooter
504
00:20:45.180 --> 00:20:47.340
walking past 56 Deering Road,
505
00:20:47.340 --> 00:20:48.870
and then immediately after the shooting,
506
00:20:48.870 --> 00:20:52.140
sprinting back up in the direction of Wellington Hill
507
00:20:52.140 --> 00:20:53.610
to where--
So what's relevant
508
00:20:53.610 --> 00:20:55.890
is the driver's state of mind
509
00:20:55.890 --> 00:20:58.980
at the time the shooter leaves the vehicle, correct?
510
00:20:58.980 --> 00:21:00.900
Correct, his shared intent.
511
00:21:00.900 --> 00:21:02.433
How do we know that,
512
00:21:03.480 --> 00:21:05.280
well, what's the evidence that the driver
513
00:21:05.280 --> 00:21:09.570
knew the vehicle was multiply occupied,
514
00:21:09.570 --> 00:21:12.000
as opposed to just having a sole occupant
515
00:21:12.000 --> 00:21:12.963
in the victim car?
516
00:21:15.180 --> 00:21:16.530
The jury could reasonably infer
517
00:21:16.530 --> 00:21:19.230
that from the fact that one shooter,
518
00:21:19.230 --> 00:21:21.090
one person emerges from the car.
519
00:21:21.090 --> 00:21:23.973
That's kind of a (laughing) circular argument.
520
00:21:25.530 --> 00:21:28.860
Right, so there has to be one person,
521
00:21:28.860 --> 00:21:31.200
unless it's I guess a self-driving car,
522
00:21:31.200 --> 00:21:33.387
but (laughing) there has to be one person in the car,
523
00:21:33.387 --> 00:21:34.743
but how do we know that,
524
00:21:36.690 --> 00:21:38.520
when they're following the car,
525
00:21:38.520 --> 00:21:40.410
that they know, "Uh-oh, there's two people,
526
00:21:40.410 --> 00:21:42.180
better get your gun," or whatever, lethal intent,
527
00:21:42.180 --> 00:21:44.130
how are we getting there,
528
00:21:44.130 --> 00:21:46.620
other than speculation and guesswork?
529
00:21:46.620 --> 00:21:47.453
So we know that
530
00:21:47.453 --> 00:21:50.370
from the shooter's direct path to the Lexus
531
00:21:50.370 --> 00:21:52.263
in his limited time on Deering Road.
532
00:21:53.220 --> 00:21:55.680
That's when the driver's outta sight though, right?
533
00:21:55.680 --> 00:21:57.510
Correct, so the Acadia has just,
534
00:21:57.510 --> 00:22:00.420
minutes before, at about, again, 9:42 in the morning,
535
00:22:00.420 --> 00:22:02.070
passed 56 Deering Road,
536
00:22:02.070 --> 00:22:03.810
heading towards Wellington Hill.
537
00:22:03.810 --> 00:22:05.750
A minute later, he's at 85 Deering Road.
538
00:22:05.750 --> 00:22:10.750
Is there evidence that the driver of the Acadia
539
00:22:11.490 --> 00:22:16.490
drove past in sight of the victim car,
540
00:22:17.880 --> 00:22:19.170
or is it just tailing it?
541
00:22:19.170 --> 00:22:20.640
Yes, the jury could infer that
542
00:22:20.640 --> 00:22:23.040
because, again, the Lexus makes a right-hand turn
543
00:22:23.040 --> 00:22:26.670
onto Deering Road at about 9:39 in the morning.
544
00:22:26.670 --> 00:22:29.040
The Acadia then turns right onto Deering Road,
545
00:22:29.040 --> 00:22:30.180
which is a one-way street,
546
00:22:30.180 --> 00:22:32.160
at 9:41:30 in the morning.
Okay,
547
00:22:32.160 --> 00:22:33.540
so he's behind him.
548
00:22:33.540 --> 00:22:35.100
Correct, he's about a minute and half behind.
549
00:22:35.100 --> 00:22:36.990
Deering's a one-way street.
550
00:22:36.990 --> 00:22:41.280
And we see on video the Acadia driving past 56 Deering Road
551
00:22:41.280 --> 00:22:43.680
at about 9:42 in the morning.
552
00:22:43.680 --> 00:22:46.680
And we don't see the Lexus ever past that.
553
00:22:46.680 --> 00:22:49.260
The Lexus never goes north of 56 Deering Road.
554
00:22:49.260 --> 00:22:52.290
And that's also corroborated by Darrell's testimony
555
00:22:52.290 --> 00:22:54.753
that they parked outside of 40 Deering Road.
556
00:23:00.270 --> 00:23:03.663
So just briefly turning back to the other issues,
557
00:23:04.590 --> 00:23:07.950
in terms of hunting the victims before the murder,
558
00:23:07.950 --> 00:23:09.510
this is very similar to Watson.
559
00:23:09.510 --> 00:23:11.880
If anything, it's much stronger
560
00:23:11.880 --> 00:23:15.090
because we have 2 1/2 hours CSLI and GPS
561
00:23:15.090 --> 00:23:16.800
corroborated by video
562
00:23:16.800 --> 00:23:18.030
showing that the Acadia
563
00:23:18.030 --> 00:23:20.790
is circling Mattapan Square.
564
00:23:20.790 --> 00:23:22.860
And we know that at the very latest,
565
00:23:22.860 --> 00:23:24.960
the jury could've inferred that the defendant
566
00:23:24.960 --> 00:23:27.330
saw the victims as they left Brothers
567
00:23:27.330 --> 00:23:28.920
at about 9:31 in the morning
568
00:23:28.920 --> 00:23:31.080
as he's turning off Fairway.
569
00:23:31.080 --> 00:23:33.120
Could I go back to the hunting though?
570
00:23:33.120 --> 00:23:34.800
So the hunting presupposes
571
00:23:34.800 --> 00:23:38.100
that it is Mr. Tse that's the driver of the car
572
00:23:38.100 --> 00:23:40.530
and you heard your Brothers still,
573
00:23:40.530 --> 00:23:43.980
he contests that you were able to prove that,
574
00:23:43.980 --> 00:23:46.410
and considering the delay
575
00:23:46.410 --> 00:23:47.820
from when it was rented
576
00:23:47.820 --> 00:23:50.220
to when this actually went down,
577
00:23:50.220 --> 00:23:52.440
why is that a reasonable inference
578
00:23:52.440 --> 00:23:53.820
that it is the defendant
579
00:23:53.820 --> 00:23:55.680
that happens to be in the car
580
00:23:55.680 --> 00:23:57.630
versus giving that phone,
581
00:23:57.630 --> 00:24:00.030
which acted like a fob,
582
00:24:00.030 --> 00:24:02.820
to somebody else that might have intended to participate
583
00:24:02.820 --> 00:24:04.980
with the person in the car to do so?
584
00:24:04.980 --> 00:24:08.730
In your brief, you say that one of the factors
585
00:24:08.730 --> 00:24:10.920
in favor of that
586
00:24:10.920 --> 00:24:13.890
is that he didn't live in the state,
587
00:24:13.890 --> 00:24:15.480
that he's a Rhode Island resident,
588
00:24:15.480 --> 00:24:18.000
or went back to Rhode Island.
589
00:24:18.000 --> 00:24:19.260
Is that really enough
590
00:24:19.260 --> 00:24:21.180
considering there's two days that a elapses
591
00:24:21.180 --> 00:24:25.590
from when the defendant rents and returns it,
592
00:24:25.590 --> 00:24:28.320
that it couldn't have been given to somebody else?
593
00:24:28.320 --> 00:24:30.540
That it's a reasonable inference that it was him?
594
00:24:30.540 --> 00:24:33.090
It's a reasonable inference that it's him
595
00:24:33.090 --> 00:24:34.170
because it's unreasonable
596
00:24:34.170 --> 00:24:35.624
that someone would give their cellphone,
597
00:24:35.624 --> 00:24:37.110
which the court has said in Almanar
598
00:24:37.110 --> 00:24:39.540
that a cellphone is his essentially a proxy for the person.
599
00:24:39.540 --> 00:24:40.860
It's unreasonable that someone
600
00:24:40.860 --> 00:24:43.200
would give their cellphone to someone else
601
00:24:43.200 --> 00:24:44.190
for hours on end.
602
00:24:44.190 --> 00:24:45.270
And that's what we have here.
603
00:24:45.270 --> 00:24:48.450
We have the GPS corroborated by the CSLI
604
00:24:48.450 --> 00:24:50.490
for 2 1/2 hours,
605
00:24:50.490 --> 00:24:52.860
and then, again, shortly after the murder,
606
00:24:52.860 --> 00:24:55.620
we have the CSLI and the GPS tracking each other,
607
00:24:55.620 --> 00:24:56.820
corroborating each other,
608
00:24:56.820 --> 00:24:59.760
in addition to calls before and after the murder,
609
00:24:59.760 --> 00:25:02.550
as that car is traveling northbound up 93,
610
00:25:02.550 --> 00:25:04.380
and then is in the area of Haymarket.
611
00:25:04.380 --> 00:25:06.450
And then seconds, excuse me,
612
00:25:06.450 --> 00:25:08.220
minutes after the Acadia is returned,
613
00:25:08.220 --> 00:25:09.630
we see the defendant alone
614
00:25:09.630 --> 00:25:12.030
walking out of the Government Center Garage,
615
00:25:12.030 --> 00:25:13.080
and that's on video.
616
00:25:13.080 --> 00:25:14.040
But to Your Honor's point,
617
00:25:14.040 --> 00:25:16.860
the fact that he's from Rhode Island
618
00:25:16.860 --> 00:25:19.590
makes that case different from cases like Baxter
619
00:25:19.590 --> 00:25:23.220
where the defendant was from the Roxbury area of Boston.
620
00:25:23.220 --> 00:25:25.770
So it could've almost been coincidence
621
00:25:25.770 --> 00:25:27.660
that the defendant Baxter
622
00:25:27.660 --> 00:25:30.390
was driving where he was at the time of the murder
623
00:25:30.390 --> 00:25:31.770
because he's from that area,
624
00:25:31.770 --> 00:25:32.640
it's more natural.
625
00:25:32.640 --> 00:25:35.460
Whereas here, this defendant comes from Rhode Island
626
00:25:35.460 --> 00:25:36.930
specifically with a plan,
627
00:25:36.930 --> 00:25:39.573
two days in advance, rents this car,
628
00:25:40.470 --> 00:25:42.270
includes all of his personal information,
629
00:25:42.270 --> 00:25:43.530
including his phone number,
630
00:25:43.530 --> 00:25:45.420
his email address,
631
00:25:45.420 --> 00:25:47.160
that's then verified by Maven,
632
00:25:47.160 --> 00:25:48.450
which is the rental company.
633
00:25:48.450 --> 00:25:50.850
It's a short-term, two-day rental,
634
00:25:50.850 --> 00:25:52.560
which allows him to rent the car
635
00:25:52.560 --> 00:25:53.850
from the Government Center Garage
636
00:25:53.850 --> 00:25:56.340
and not even interact with any humans.
637
00:25:56.340 --> 00:25:59.220
And then, again, in terms of after the murder,
638
00:25:59.220 --> 00:26:01.533
he's seen on video returning the car.
639
00:26:02.760 --> 00:26:04.230
Sure, it was returned that same day,
640
00:26:04.230 --> 00:26:06.540
but he returns it less than an hour after the murder.
641
00:26:06.540 --> 00:26:08.700
The jury could certainly infer that.
642
00:26:08.700 --> 00:26:10.260
But doesn't his phone go off the grid
643
00:26:10.260 --> 00:26:12.360
for about a half an hour after the murder?
644
00:26:12.360 --> 00:26:15.000
There's about a 25-minute gap,
645
00:26:15.000 --> 00:26:16.590
but the relevant point
646
00:26:16.590 --> 00:26:18.960
is that there's no video
647
00:26:18.960 --> 00:26:20.640
showing that anyone else that morning
648
00:26:20.640 --> 00:26:22.760
was driving the car.
649
00:26:22.760 --> 00:26:25.920
In that case, this makes it distinguishable from Gonzalez
650
00:26:25.920 --> 00:26:26.850
where in that case,
651
00:26:26.850 --> 00:26:29.250
there was evidence that the defendant's boyfriend
652
00:26:29.250 --> 00:26:30.300
had borrowed her car
653
00:26:30.300 --> 00:26:32.348
throughout the day of the shooting.
654
00:26:32.348 --> 00:26:33.630
And that isn't the case here,
655
00:26:33.630 --> 00:26:36.360
especially when we consider that the cellphone
656
00:26:36.360 --> 00:26:40.173
is used to operate the car.
657
00:26:42.060 --> 00:26:43.860
How do you explain that gap though,
658
00:26:43.860 --> 00:26:46.530
if the cellphone is used to operate the car?
659
00:26:46.530 --> 00:26:47.760
The car is in one place,
660
00:26:47.760 --> 00:26:49.170
then there's no information,
661
00:26:49.170 --> 00:26:51.300
and then suddenly the car is in a different place.
662
00:26:51.300 --> 00:26:54.600
So what we know is that the last GPS point for the Acadia
663
00:26:54.600 --> 00:26:57.150
was at 9:46:32 in the morning
664
00:26:57.150 --> 00:26:59.550
outside of 85 Deering Road.
665
00:26:59.550 --> 00:27:01.710
That's about 25 seconds after the shooter
666
00:27:01.710 --> 00:27:04.290
is last seen passing 56 Deering Road,
667
00:27:04.290 --> 00:27:06.450
heading towards Wellington Hill Street.
668
00:27:06.450 --> 00:27:10.320
And it's about 20 seconds after police arrive,
669
00:27:10.320 --> 00:27:12.210
passing by 56 Deer Road.
670
00:27:12.210 --> 00:27:15.060
So we know that by the time police arrive on scene,
671
00:27:15.060 --> 00:27:17.010
the Acadia's gone and the shooter's gone.
672
00:27:17.010 --> 00:27:18.420
And that's because Officer Burke
673
00:27:18.420 --> 00:27:19.890
testifies when he arrives
674
00:27:19.890 --> 00:27:22.890
at the intersection of Wellington Hill and Blue Ave,
675
00:27:22.890 --> 00:27:24.360
excuse me, and Deering,
676
00:27:24.360 --> 00:27:26.190
he's looking and he doesn't see anyone running.
677
00:27:26.190 --> 00:27:28.557
He doesn't see any cars and--
678
00:27:28.557 --> 00:27:30.420
But what about the gap though?
679
00:27:30.420 --> 00:27:33.660
Because if you need the phone to operate,
680
00:27:33.660 --> 00:27:35.220
what about the gap?
681
00:27:35.220 --> 00:27:38.070
Because the only testimony that I came across
682
00:27:38.070 --> 00:27:40.890
that talked about the expert testimony
683
00:27:40.890 --> 00:27:45.890
that was offered on this particular rideshare app was,
684
00:27:46.410 --> 00:27:47.760
you might lose the signal
685
00:27:47.760 --> 00:27:50.670
if you're going into a tunnel or something else,
686
00:27:50.670 --> 00:27:53.640
but they're on Deering Road in Mattapan.
687
00:27:53.640 --> 00:27:56.370
And if the return point is Government Center,
688
00:27:56.370 --> 00:27:58.440
what accounts for where that car is
689
00:27:58.440 --> 00:28:00.063
if the fob is the phone?
690
00:28:00.900 --> 00:28:03.060
So we know that there's this gap,
691
00:28:03.060 --> 00:28:06.420
but we know that there's physical distance
692
00:28:06.420 --> 00:28:09.030
between where the GPS lasts pinged
693
00:28:09.030 --> 00:28:10.620
at 9:46 in the morning,
694
00:28:10.620 --> 00:28:11.940
outside of 85 Deering Road,
695
00:28:11.940 --> 00:28:14.310
and where it next pings at 10:11 a.m.,
696
00:28:14.310 --> 00:28:16.020
which is in the area of Mattapan Square.
697
00:28:16.020 --> 00:28:17.910
The jury could reasonably infer
698
00:28:17.910 --> 00:28:20.910
that the defendant traveled to that area.
699
00:28:20.910 --> 00:28:24.600
But regardless, we have corroborating CSLI and GPS
700
00:28:24.600 --> 00:28:27.261
from that point 10:11 in the morning
701
00:28:27.261 --> 00:28:29.370
consistently until 9:43 in the morning
702
00:28:29.370 --> 00:28:30.870
when the car's returned.
703
00:28:30.870 --> 00:28:32.130
After the car's returned,
704
00:28:32.130 --> 00:28:33.450
about 50 seconds later,
705
00:28:33.450 --> 00:28:35.250
there's a final phone call.
706
00:28:35.250 --> 00:28:36.540
And the phone evidence
707
00:28:36.540 --> 00:28:39.210
goes towards the fact of participation
708
00:28:39.210 --> 00:28:41.100
similar to Javier,
709
00:28:41.100 --> 00:28:43.260
where we have calls before the murder,
710
00:28:43.260 --> 00:28:45.750
no calls during the relevant time.
711
00:28:45.750 --> 00:28:47.640
In Javier, that was about 15 minutes
712
00:28:47.640 --> 00:28:48.630
leading up to the murder,
713
00:28:48.630 --> 00:28:51.597
and here it's from 9:34 in the morning until--
714
00:28:51.597 --> 00:28:54.960
But your contention is not that he's the shooter, right?
715
00:28:54.960 --> 00:28:56.670
If he's the driver,
716
00:28:56.670 --> 00:28:59.403
he can be sitting in the car with the car on,
717
00:29:00.300 --> 00:29:03.708
but the shooter... (sighing)
718
00:29:03.708 --> 00:29:06.000
And the shooter is a skinny guy.
719
00:29:06.000 --> 00:29:08.880
He's a 300-pound guy, right?
720
00:29:08.880 --> 00:29:11.700
Correct, there was never any dispute
721
00:29:11.700 --> 00:29:14.073
that the shooter was a different person.
722
00:29:15.240 --> 00:29:17.280
I'm confused by your last point then.
723
00:29:17.280 --> 00:29:21.720
So he's not running around shooting anybody,
724
00:29:21.720 --> 00:29:23.343
he's driving the car.
725
00:29:24.270 --> 00:29:26.790
Correct, and so the lack of cellphone evidence
726
00:29:26.790 --> 00:29:29.220
from 9:34 in the morning
727
00:29:29.220 --> 00:29:30.660
until the shooter,
728
00:29:30.660 --> 00:29:32.310
until the shooting, excuse me,
729
00:29:32.310 --> 00:29:34.260
shows his act of participation.
730
00:29:34.260 --> 00:29:37.470
And at about 9:33 in the morning
731
00:29:37.470 --> 00:29:40.170
is when we see the Acadia
732
00:29:40.170 --> 00:29:43.140
turn left off Fairway onto Blue Hill Ave.
733
00:29:43.140 --> 00:29:44.430
It's passing the Lexus,
734
00:29:44.430 --> 00:29:47.340
which is parked outside of the post station,
735
00:29:47.340 --> 00:29:49.230
outside the post office, excuse me.
736
00:29:49.230 --> 00:29:52.230
And we know the post office is slightly north,
737
00:29:52.230 --> 00:29:54.660
slightly more inbound than Brothers,
738
00:29:54.660 --> 00:29:56.580
which is where they had just gone
739
00:29:56.580 --> 00:29:58.110
to get their breakfast.
740
00:29:58.110 --> 00:30:00.150
And from that point on,
741
00:30:00.150 --> 00:30:02.670
they're aggressively following the victims.
742
00:30:02.670 --> 00:30:05.310
I just wanna summarize in my own head,
743
00:30:05.310 --> 00:30:09.180
your way of distinguishing Baez and Baxter
744
00:30:09.180 --> 00:30:11.640
on lethal intent
745
00:30:11.640 --> 00:30:15.450
is there was more tracking,
746
00:30:15.450 --> 00:30:18.210
and there was one shooter and two victims,
747
00:30:18.210 --> 00:30:20.580
is that essentially your argument
748
00:30:20.580 --> 00:30:22.770
for distinguishing those two cases?
749
00:30:22.770 --> 00:30:24.960
Essentially, I'd add a little more
750
00:30:24.960 --> 00:30:27.630
in terms of the reconnaissance
751
00:30:27.630 --> 00:30:29.040
and then the aggressive following.
752
00:30:29.040 --> 00:30:30.870
In Baxter, we don't have that reconnaissance,
753
00:30:30.870 --> 00:30:34.680
we just have following for a shorter period of time.
754
00:30:34.680 --> 00:30:36.330
It almost seemed about like two minutes
755
00:30:36.330 --> 00:30:37.860
from reading the case.
756
00:30:37.860 --> 00:30:41.140
And again, the fact that the shooter
757
00:30:42.209 --> 00:30:43.620
and the victim are one on one,
758
00:30:43.620 --> 00:30:45.570
and both are on foot in those cases,
759
00:30:45.570 --> 00:30:48.030
whereas we don't have that in this case.
760
00:30:48.030 --> 00:30:50.610
And so it's reasonable to infer that the defendant,
761
00:30:50.610 --> 00:30:54.150
again, remained outside of 85 Deering Road,
762
00:30:54.150 --> 00:30:56.310
which was beyond the crest of the hill.
763
00:30:56.310 --> 00:31:00.180
And also in a position similar to Watson
764
00:31:00.180 --> 00:31:02.340
where the Lincoln was used to block the street here,
765
00:31:02.340 --> 00:31:04.800
he positions the car on a one-way street
766
00:31:04.800 --> 00:31:08.010
having just made that U-turn in front of Morton Street.
767
00:31:08.010 --> 00:31:11.283
But he's outta sight of the shooting, right?
768
00:31:11.283 --> 00:31:13.607
He's out of sight, but he had just driven up Deering Road
769
00:31:13.607 --> 00:31:16.830
'Cause in Watson, he blocked the street.
770
00:31:16.830 --> 00:31:19.200
I mean, that was the difference in lethal intent in Watson,
771
00:31:19.200 --> 00:31:20.310
where he blocked the street,
772
00:31:20.310 --> 00:31:22.590
the guy gets right out of the car, shoots him,
773
00:31:22.590 --> 00:31:24.540
and then gets back in the car with a gun.
774
00:31:24.540 --> 00:31:27.810
Here we have the defendant
775
00:31:27.810 --> 00:31:31.290
parked outta sight, over the crest of a hill,
776
00:31:31.290 --> 00:31:36.290
similar to the geographic issues in Baez and Baxter, right?
777
00:31:38.850 --> 00:31:39.750
Yes, but my point
778
00:31:39.750 --> 00:31:40.583
in terms of the positioning of the car--
779
00:31:40.583 --> 00:31:42.090
I don't think Watson helps you
780
00:31:42.090 --> 00:31:44.943
because Watson, they're right there at the scene.
781
00:31:45.810 --> 00:31:47.640
Well, in Watson, this court,
782
00:31:47.640 --> 00:31:49.080
I understand what Your Honor's saying,
783
00:31:49.080 --> 00:31:50.700
though in Watson, what this court says
784
00:31:50.700 --> 00:31:53.040
is that the car positioned Lincoln
785
00:31:53.040 --> 00:31:54.810
to block anyone else from interfering.
786
00:31:54.810 --> 00:31:58.530
And my point here is that having just made the U-turn
787
00:31:58.530 --> 00:31:59.520
on Blue Hill Avenue,
788
00:31:59.520 --> 00:32:00.990
passing the police station
789
00:32:00.990 --> 00:32:03.720
at the intersection of Morton Street and Blue Hill Ave,
790
00:32:03.720 --> 00:32:05.370
the jury could reasonably infer
791
00:32:05.370 --> 00:32:07.740
that the defendant positioned the car
792
00:32:07.740 --> 00:32:08.820
to quickly get away
793
00:32:08.820 --> 00:32:10.800
and avoid any interference from police,
794
00:32:10.800 --> 00:32:13.470
where we know that Deering's a one-way street
795
00:32:13.470 --> 00:32:14.880
and that the police station
796
00:32:14.880 --> 00:32:16.170
is on this specific corner
797
00:32:16.170 --> 00:32:17.460
that they had just driven past
798
00:32:17.460 --> 00:32:19.023
upon turning onto Deering Road.
799
00:32:19.980 --> 00:32:21.570
I see that my time has expired,
800
00:32:21.570 --> 00:32:23.400
unless the court has any further questions,
801
00:32:23.400 --> 00:32:24.573
I'll rest on my brief.