Worthington trial
By Elizabeth White
The trial of Christopher McCowen for the murder of fashion writer Christa Worthington began Monday October 16, 2006 in Barnstable Superior Court. It ended with McCowen's conviction on all counts exactly a month later on Thursday November 16.
Worthington was found slain in her Truro home nearly five years ago, at age 46. 34-year old McCowen of Hyannis was charged with and convicted of first degree murder, aggravated rape, and aggravated burglary.
Our reporter Elizabeth White covered the trial for WCAI. She provided three or more blog entries per day
and her reporter's notes about
the trial. You
can find her
blog entries, audio and photos below. (photo captions and credits are at the bottom of
each page)
Listen to the opening statement of prosecutor Robert Welsh.
Listen to the opening statement of defense attorney Robert George.
Listen to the closing statement of defense attorney Robert George.
Listen to the closing statement of prosecutor Robert Welsh.
Link to Cape Cod Times archives on the Worthington case.
Thursday. November 16, 2006 5:30 PM
Following sentencing, Defense attorney George and then Prosecutor Welsh spoke to the legions of assembled press.
George said he smelled a police plot to remove Juror #4 after the jury reported a deadlock on Monday. Juror #4 was dismissed on Tuesday after the prosecution presented cell phone calls between Juror #4 and the father of her child, who was being held in the Barnstable County jail in connection with a shooting in Falmouth over the weekend. George said inmates are not allowed to call cell phones from jail, and vowed to investigate the matter. George said the police investigation of Worthington's murder was sloppy and inadequate. In particular, George said there is no excuse for not recording a suspect's interrogation.
Prosecutor Welsh addressed the media, but did not take questions. He congratulated State Trooper Christopher Mason and Sergeant William Burke on a job well done. "I'm very happy we were able to get some justice for the Worthington family," Welsh said. He concluded, "I want to thank the jury who worked very hard to reach a resolution in the this case, and we believe it is the just resolution in this case."
Listen to defense attorney Robert George's reaction to the verdict.
Thursday. November 16, 2006 2:20 PM
After a brief victim impact statement from Christa Worthington's cousin Mary, McCowen spoke briefly to Judge Nickerson in open court. He said he felt sorry for the Worthington family but then said, "I am an innocent man."
The clerk read out the mandatory sentence for the first degree murder counts: life without the possibility of parole. McCowen was also sentenced to concurrent life terms for the aggravated rape and aggravated burglary charges.
In her brief statement, Mary Worthington did not address or refer to McCowen. Instead, she spoke about Christa's "vibrant" life being tragically cut short and her daughter Ava having to live without her mother.
The final act of the day and the trial was Judge Nickerson's announcement that he was impounding the names and addresses of the jurors instead of releasing them to the media. He said he was issuing a statement explaining his reasons but was also impounding that statement.
A press conference had been set up for the jury after the verdict but all the jurors declined to speak.
Listen to the sentencing phase of the trial.
Thursday. November 16, 2006 12:10 PM
Clarification: McCowen convicted on two of three theories of first degree murder as well as aggravated rape and aggravated buglary.
Specifically: convicted of extreme cruelty and atrocity and felony muder. Not guilty of deliberate premeditation.
Sentencing will take place at 2:00PM today. He faces life in prison without parole.
Thursday. November 16, 2006 11:55 AM
McCowen found guilty on all charges. More shortly...
Thursday. November 16, 2006 11:30 AM
JURY REACHES VERDICT
Fifteen minute warning given...
Thursday. November 16, 2006 9:20 AM
Jury begins deliberating once again.
Wednesday. November 15, 2006 4:00 PM
At 2 PM Judge Nickerson announced he'd received the following written communication from the jury: "In your orders to the jury you speak about voluntariness of a statement. You have commented on our appellate court's preference that statements taken at a police station should be recorded whenever practicable. This order has caused confusion. Do police officers have the option of recording a statement when practicable even though an individual has signed off his right to be recorded?"
[Background: Following his arrest in April of 2005, McCowen told police he'd had sex with Worthington on the night of Jnauary 4th 2002 and then participated in her beating before witnessing Jeremy Frazier stab her. That statement, along with a DNA match between McCowen and DNA found in and on Worthington's body, is the evidence on which the state rests it case. The statement was not tape recorded. McCowen signed a document saying he did not wish to be recorded. The prosecution maintains the statement is a veiled confession. The defense says it's a fabrication coerced while the defendant was stoned. To be considered as evidence against the defendant, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that McCowen gave that statement voluntarily and rationally. Expert witnesses have testified that only an electronic recording of the interview would settle questions as to whether the statement was coerced. Judge Nickerson told the jury in his charge that the absence of an electronic recording permits, but does not compel, the jury to conclude that voluntariness has not been proved beyound a reasonable doubt.]
Basically, the jury's question to the judge is: can police roll the tape regardless of the individual's desire not to be recorded? Nickerson asked counsel what they thought.
Prosecution: "The short answer to that is: no."
Defense: "No is the wrong answer."
Listen to Nickerson's discussion with counsel.
Nickerson decided the answer was "a qualified yes." Meaning, yes, the police can still record, as long as the suspect is aware they're being recorded. In other words, only knowledge, not consent, is required. Defense attorney George drew an analogy to inmates making calls from jail: they're told the call is recorded, not asked if they'd like it to be.
Before bringing the jury in, Nickerson acknowledged that a suspect who didn't want to be recorded would perhaps clam up if police went ahead with a recording. "But that's not my problem, is it?" Nickerson asked.
Nickerson then answered the jury: "Under Massachusetts law, no one can be recorded surreptitiously, no one can be recorded unaware that they're being recorded. However, if an individual is told 'everything you say in this room will be recorded.' in other words, if they are put on knowledge that they're being recorded, then a recording is not unlawful."
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:00 PM
Judge granted the Cape Cod Times (and others) permission to publish juror #4's name.
Read Cape Cod Times reporter Hillary Russ' story about the ruling.
Read Cape Cod Times reporter George Brennan's story about the dismissed juror.
Reporter Eric Williams and I got a rare on-the-record interview with defense attorney Robert George this afternoon. "My concern is that I haven't been able to convince twelve people that there's reasonable doubt when I know there is. I think I've convinced everybody else there's reasonable doubt, but obviously we've got a problem in the jury room," George said.
Listen to defense attorney Robert George discuss yesterday's dismissial of Juror #4, issues of race and class in McCowen's arrest, and possible grounds for appeal. (9:09)
Listen to defense attorney Robert George give his insight into McCowen's feelings and state of mind. (3:15)
Assistant District Attorney Robert Welsh III has declined my requests to interview him on the record.
Wednesday November 15, 2006. 2:00 PM
The jury continues to deliberate. No communications from them. The Cape Cod Times is about to make its case why it should be able to publish the dismissed juror's name. More shortly...
Wednesday November 15, 2006. 10:30 AM
The jury resumed deliberations at 9 AM. Deliberations started anew yesterday morning following the dismissial of Juror #4. If the "new" jury reports a deadlock, and Judge Nickerson finds their deliberations have indeed been "due and thorough," he can still send them back to the jury room twice more before declaring a hung jury.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:00 PM
Jury finished deliberating for the day and were transported by bus to their hotel. They will remain sequestered for the remainder of their deliberations. Deliberations will resume tomorrow morning at 9.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:20 PM The jury is deliberating past 4 PM today for the first time since they began deliberations a week ago. The jury will be sequestered again tonight.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:45 PM
After reflection and research, a slightly more benevolent Judge Nickerson re-convened the media informally and vacated his order for contempt hearings, as well as his ban on cameras. Case law from the SJC supports the media's right to operate cameras outside the courthouse without restriction.
Periodically, jurors walk by the press on their way out through the lobby for a cigarette break. The media is ordered not to discuss the case as they go by. Likewise, the jury may not deliberate on their cigarette breaks. As they walked by just now, one juror expressed pleasure at the warm weather. Court officers report it is 58 degrees out.
Tuesday, November 14th 2006 12:10 PM
Judge Nickerson replaced the dismissed juror with one of the two remaining alternates. With a new juror on board, deliberations will begin again from scratch.
The juror was dismissed following the playing of phone conversations she had with Kyle Hicks, an inmate at the Barnstable House of Corrections. Hicks was arrested over the weekend in connection with a shooting in Falmouth. He is the father of the dismissed juror's child. In the course of the conversation, the juror made disparaging comments about police, such as "they're so friggin' dumb." The prosecution maintained this showed bias against the police. The former juror also referred to information supposedly broadcast on Court TV, which the prosecution said showed she was receiving outside information about the trial. Defense attorney George objected to the dismissal saying the juror didn't discuss the case or deliberations. "To take her out now," said George, "would destroy the defendant's right to a fair trial." George said removing a juror from a deadlocked jury would be a breach of justice, but Judge Nickerson denied George's motion for a mistrial.
The juror's relation to the arrested Hicks was the subject of yesterday's closed-door discussions. At that time, Nickerson ruled the arrest of Hicks did not jeopardize the juror's ability to be fair and impartial. The ruling was based on the juror's report that she had only limited contact with Hicks. However, this morning, Nickerson ruled the phone conversations revealed an "active relationship" between the juror and Hicks. The discripency, Nickerson said, showed the juror "to be less than reliable."
Drama in court for the media. Following juror #4's
dismissal, the Cape Cod Times published her name on
their website, which is prohibited by Massachusetts
law and Judge Nickerson's specific media order. Judge
Nickerson convened the media in the courtroom to
discuss the breach. Reporters for the Times said they
did not report the name, which was said in open court
by defense attorney George and Judge Nickerson.
Apparently, the Times' editorial staff learned the
name from Court TV. Court TV is broadcast with a six
second delay and producers in New York are
theoretically responsible for bleeping out jurors'
names. Nickerson ordered both The Cape Cod Times and
Court TV to appear for contempt hearings tomorrow at
10 AM. Nickerson also banned all cameras from the
courthouse premises, with the exception of the Court
TV cameras in the courtroom, and two pre-approved
"pool" still photographers. Yesterday, more than a
dozen TV cameras were positioned on the sidewalk
pointed at the courthouse door.
Tuesday November 14, 2006 10:34 AM
A female juror was discharged at 10:20 AM this morning. The defense objected to the dismissal, and will argue for a mistrial shortly. More details on the juror's dismissial when I find out what the press is allowed to report regarding her identity/reasons for dismissal.
Monday November 13, 2006 4:00 PM
Judge orders sequestration of jury for the night. Nickerson told the jurors that they would be picked up, taken to an undisclosed hotel, fed dinner and breakfast, and then taken back to court tomorrow morning. They may not deliberate with each other overnight. Some of the jurors expressed chagrin. One female juror hung her head in her hands. The jurors were told by Nickerson that they were NOT being sequestered because they told the judge they were deadlocked.
Monday November 13, 2006 2:30 PM
The jury sent a note to Judge Nickerson saying they are deadlocked and can not reach a verdict on any of the charges. The note read in part: ""After weighing all the evidence over the past five days, we the jury have come to the conclusion that we are deadlocked in coming to a unanimous decision."
The judge responded by giving a so-called "Rodriguez" charge to the jury which is an admonition written by the state Appeals Court that the jury should keep trying to break the deadlock. Nickerson read the standard language and phraseology of the charge that includes: "It is desirable that the case be decided" and "It's your duty to reach a decision if you can conscientiously do so."
If the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict on any of the charges, a mistrial will be called and McCowen could be tried again.
Right now the judge is deciding whether the jury should be sequestered tonight at the request of defense attorney Robert George.
Monday November 13, 2006 10:45 AM
Jury back deliberating. The judge gave no explanation for closing the courtroom. There are rumors and speculation but nothing official.
Monday November 13, 2006 9:10 AM
The day (and Week Four of the trial) begins with the courtroom being cleared of reporters and spectators. No reason given. A reasonable guess would be an issue with a juror or the jury as a whole. But that's just a guess. More shortly...
Sunday November 12, 2006
Four days and counting.
Why might the jury be taking so long to reach a verdict?
On Friday the jury asked Judge Nickerson to spell out the definition of reasonable doubt. No one knows yet why this request was made but here are some areas that may be troubling the jurors:
1) Were Christopher McCowen's incriminating statements to police coerced and therefore false?
Defense attorney Robert George made much of the fact that McCowen's verbal IQ is a lowly 78 and that he was under the influence of marijuana and Percocet (a potent, opium-based pain pill) the night of his arrest and interrogation. The combination of these factors might have made him susceptible to manipulation by police who could have "fed" him information that led to the final incriminating versions of his story. Dr. Richard Ofshe, an authority on police interrogation tactics called by the defense, suggested some subtle ways this might have come about. He testified that in the process of manipulating a suspect, police sometimes suggest to the suspect "the presence of a second individual" at the crime scene which, it's implied, might lessen the suspect's culpability. After first denying it, McCowen did eventually tell police he was in Worthington's home when she was murdered. But he claimed that his friend Jeremy Frazier was also there and was the actual killer.
As a side note, Ofshe testified that in most interrogations, police are primarily looking for information from the suspect that indicates his or her presence at the crime scene, a specific detail not known by the public (through the media) and perhaps not known by the police, such as the location of a missing murder weapon. McCowen apparently did not give any such details in his various statements. Because of this, Ofshe described McCowen's interrogation (outside the presence of the jury; Judge Nickerson would not allow Ofshe to testify about McCowen's specific interrogation - only about police tactics in general) as a "failed" interrogation. Despite a string of incriminating statements, McCowen didn't, for example, tell police where the murder weapon was.
2) Are there credible alternative theories of the crime that could lead to reasonable doubt?
Defense attorney George emphasized again and again to the jury that the defense had no obligation to "prove" another suspect did it. However this didn't prevent him from bringing up a number of possibilities in his closing statement. None of these possibilities are backed by hard evidence. All are purely speculative. First, Jeremy Frazier, as reflected in McCowen's statement to police and a reference by a witness to a burglary planned by Frazier of some wealthy woman's home. Second, Worthington's neighbor and ex-boyfriend Tim Arnold who was at one time the police's prime suspect. Third, a certain Dave Murphy --Jeremy Frazier's former friend and fellow worker -- who, prior to Worthington's murder, was imprisoned for fifteen years for manslaughter. Murphy might have been the man in the black vehicle who Worthington's neighbor testified he saw racing down Worthington's driveway a day before her body was discovered.
3) Is there an innocent explanation for the presence of McCowen's DNA in and on Worthington's body?
Defense attorney George hammered away at the fact that the autopsy revealed no signs of sexual trauma -- rape -- on Worthington's body. He stated that rape wasn't even considered by police until they got back the DNA results pointing to McCowen. He contended that police could not conceive of the possibility that McCowen -- a poor, black trash collector -- and Worthington -- a wealthy, educated white woman -- could have had consensual sex. Of course having consensual sex with the victim doesn't rule out the possibility that McCowen murdered her. But the jury might be troubled by the possibility that the police and prosecutors were motivated by racism in arresting McCowen in the first place and then charging him not only with rape but "aggravated" rape. Conceivably, this racism could have caused the police to doctor McCowen's statements to them.
As to this last point, Jack Coleman has an interesting blog entry today about the "To Record or Not Record" debate. Coleman writes that the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled several months before McCowen's arrest that police must have a suspect's consent to record an interrogation and if the suspect refuses, must have the suspect sign a form stating that refusal. The police followed this exact procedure with McCowen. Coleman points out that if the police had gone ahead and recorded McCowen despite his refusal, his attorney would undoubtedly have accused the police of violating the SJC's specific -- and recent -- ruling on the issue.
Friday November 10, 2006 5 PM
Court adjourned at 4 PM without a verdict. Deliberations continue at 9 AM on Monday.
Friday November 10, 2006 10:10 AM
The jury just requested Judge Nickerson define "reasonable doubt" for them. During the original charge to the jury he said proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that jurors must have an abiding conviction to a resonably degree of moral certainty that the charges against the defendant are true. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, nor does it mean that the defendant is more likely guilty than not.
Friday November 10, 2006 9:00 AM
Jury begins deliberations for fourth day.
Thursday November 9, 2006 4:00 PM
Jury goes home once again without reaching a verdict. They've been deliberating for two and a half days. Jury consists of seven women and five men. Two of them are African-Americans. Deliberations are expected to continue tomorrow morning at 9.
Thursday November 9, 2006 11:00 AM
REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK
The jury is still deliberating. Milling around the courthouse are journalists, writers, and TV crews waiting on the verdict. Posted below are interviews with a sampling of these media folks.
Beth Karas: Karas is a correspondent for Court TV. Karas discusses the judge's charge to the jury.
Listen to this interview. (5:53)
Eric Williams: Williams writes a daily blog on the trial for The Cape Cod Times. Williams discusses the emotional struggles of covering this trial.
Listen to this interview. (9:36)
Maria Flook: Flook's book Invisible Eden examines the community of the Outer Cape in the wake of Worthington's murder. It was a New York Times bestseller when it came out in 2003. She's including McCowen's trial in a forthcoming edition, and has been in communication with McCowen since his arrest. This includes letters and phone calls -- some very recent.
Listen to this interview. (18:03)
Megan Tench: Tench reports for the Boston Globe. Tench became friendly with many of the court's daily spectators. One of these spectators is a spouse of a juror. According to Tench, this spouse is convinced McCowen is "absolutely" not guilty. But says he (or she) has not tried to influence their spouse. The jury is not sequestered, meaning jurors have gone home every night after trial proceedings -- including during deliberations.
Listen to this interview. (14:58)
Peter Manso: Manso is the author of the book P'town: Art, Sex, and Money on the Outer Cape. At the time of McCowen's arrest, Manso agreed to write a book about the trial and has been researching the case against McCowen for over a year. He is sympathetic to the defense and believes McCowen should be found not guilty.
Listen to this interview. (43:19)
Thursday November 9, 2006 9:00 AM
Juey begins third day (second full day) of deliberations.
Photo captions and credits:
Christopher McCowen leaving court (Cape Cod Times photo)
Members of the jury leaving the courthouse after rendering a verdict (Elizabeth White photo)
(left to right) Judge Gary Nickerson, prosecutor Robert Welsh III, and defense attorney Robert George conferring (Cape Cod Times photo)
Previous week's blog entries.
The trial of Christopher McCowen for the murder of fashion writer Christa Worthington began Monday October 16, 2006 in Barnstable Superior Court. It ended with McCowen's conviction on all counts exactly a month later on Thursday November 16.
Worthington was found slain in her Truro home nearly five years ago, at age 46. 34-year old McCowen of Hyannis was charged with and convicted of first degree murder, aggravated rape, and aggravated burglary.
Listen to the opening statement of prosecutor Robert Welsh.
Listen to the opening statement of defense attorney Robert George.
Listen to the closing statement of defense attorney Robert George.
Listen to the closing statement of prosecutor Robert Welsh.
Link to Cape Cod Times archives on the Worthington case.
Following sentencing, Defense attorney George and then Prosecutor Welsh spoke to the legions of assembled press.
George said he smelled a police plot to remove Juror #4 after the jury reported a deadlock on Monday. Juror #4 was dismissed on Tuesday after the prosecution presented cell phone calls between Juror #4 and the father of her child, who was being held in the Barnstable County jail in connection with a shooting in Falmouth over the weekend. George said inmates are not allowed to call cell phones from jail, and vowed to investigate the matter. George said the police investigation of Worthington's murder was sloppy and inadequate. In particular, George said there is no excuse for not recording a suspect's interrogation.
Prosecutor Welsh addressed the media, but did not take questions. He congratulated State Trooper Christopher Mason and Sergeant William Burke on a job well done. "I'm very happy we were able to get some justice for the Worthington family," Welsh said. He concluded, "I want to thank the jury who worked very hard to reach a resolution in the this case, and we believe it is the just resolution in this case."
Listen to defense attorney Robert George's reaction to the verdict.
Thursday. November 16, 2006 2:20 PM
After a brief victim impact statement from Christa Worthington's cousin Mary, McCowen spoke briefly to Judge Nickerson in open court. He said he felt sorry for the Worthington family but then said, "I am an innocent man."
The clerk read out the mandatory sentence for the first degree murder counts: life without the possibility of parole. McCowen was also sentenced to concurrent life terms for the aggravated rape and aggravated burglary charges.
In her brief statement, Mary Worthington did not address or refer to McCowen. Instead, she spoke about Christa's "vibrant" life being tragically cut short and her daughter Ava having to live without her mother.
The final act of the day and the trial was Judge Nickerson's announcement that he was impounding the names and addresses of the jurors instead of releasing them to the media. He said he was issuing a statement explaining his reasons but was also impounding that statement.
A press conference had been set up for the jury after the verdict but all the jurors declined to speak.
Listen to the sentencing phase of the trial.
Thursday. November 16, 2006 12:10 PM
Clarification: McCowen convicted on two of three theories of first degree murder as well as aggravated rape and aggravated buglary.
Specifically: convicted of extreme cruelty and atrocity and felony muder. Not guilty of deliberate premeditation.
Sentencing will take place at 2:00PM today. He faces life in prison without parole.
Thursday. November 16, 2006 11:55 AM
McCowen found guilty on all charges. More shortly...
Thursday. November 16, 2006 11:30 AM
JURY REACHES VERDICT
Fifteen minute warning given...
Thursday. November 16, 2006 9:20 AM
Jury begins deliberating once again.
Wednesday. November 15, 2006 4:00 PM
At 2 PM Judge Nickerson announced he'd received the following written communication from the jury: "In your orders to the jury you speak about voluntariness of a statement. You have commented on our appellate court's preference that statements taken at a police station should be recorded whenever practicable. This order has caused confusion. Do police officers have the option of recording a statement when practicable even though an individual has signed off his right to be recorded?"
[Background: Following his arrest in April of 2005, McCowen told police he'd had sex with Worthington on the night of Jnauary 4th 2002 and then participated in her beating before witnessing Jeremy Frazier stab her. That statement, along with a DNA match between McCowen and DNA found in and on Worthington's body, is the evidence on which the state rests it case. The statement was not tape recorded. McCowen signed a document saying he did not wish to be recorded. The prosecution maintains the statement is a veiled confession. The defense says it's a fabrication coerced while the defendant was stoned. To be considered as evidence against the defendant, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that McCowen gave that statement voluntarily and rationally. Expert witnesses have testified that only an electronic recording of the interview would settle questions as to whether the statement was coerced. Judge Nickerson told the jury in his charge that the absence of an electronic recording permits, but does not compel, the jury to conclude that voluntariness has not been proved beyound a reasonable doubt.]
Basically, the jury's question to the judge is: can police roll the tape regardless of the individual's desire not to be recorded? Nickerson asked counsel what they thought.
Prosecution: "The short answer to that is: no."
Defense: "No is the wrong answer."
Listen to Nickerson's discussion with counsel.
Nickerson decided the answer was "a qualified yes." Meaning, yes, the police can still record, as long as the suspect is aware they're being recorded. In other words, only knowledge, not consent, is required. Defense attorney George drew an analogy to inmates making calls from jail: they're told the call is recorded, not asked if they'd like it to be.
Before bringing the jury in, Nickerson acknowledged that a suspect who didn't want to be recorded would perhaps clam up if police went ahead with a recording. "But that's not my problem, is it?" Nickerson asked.
Nickerson then answered the jury: "Under Massachusetts law, no one can be recorded surreptitiously, no one can be recorded unaware that they're being recorded. However, if an individual is told 'everything you say in this room will be recorded.' in other words, if they are put on knowledge that they're being recorded, then a recording is not unlawful."
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:00 PM
Judge granted the Cape Cod Times (and others) permission to publish juror #4's name.
Read Cape Cod Times reporter Hillary Russ' story about the ruling.
Read Cape Cod Times reporter George Brennan's story about the dismissed juror.
Reporter Eric Williams and I got a rare on-the-record interview with defense attorney Robert George this afternoon. "My concern is that I haven't been able to convince twelve people that there's reasonable doubt when I know there is. I think I've convinced everybody else there's reasonable doubt, but obviously we've got a problem in the jury room," George said.
Listen to defense attorney Robert George discuss yesterday's dismissial of Juror #4, issues of race and class in McCowen's arrest, and possible grounds for appeal. (9:09)
Listen to defense attorney Robert George give his insight into McCowen's feelings and state of mind. (3:15)
Assistant District Attorney Robert Welsh III has declined my requests to interview him on the record.
Wednesday November 15, 2006. 2:00 PM
The jury continues to deliberate. No communications from them. The Cape Cod Times is about to make its case why it should be able to publish the dismissed juror's name. More shortly...
Wednesday November 15, 2006. 10:30 AM
The jury resumed deliberations at 9 AM. Deliberations started anew yesterday morning following the dismissial of Juror #4. If the "new" jury reports a deadlock, and Judge Nickerson finds their deliberations have indeed been "due and thorough," he can still send them back to the jury room twice more before declaring a hung jury.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:00 PM
Jury finished deliberating for the day and were transported by bus to their hotel. They will remain sequestered for the remainder of their deliberations. Deliberations will resume tomorrow morning at 9.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:20 PM The jury is deliberating past 4 PM today for the first time since they began deliberations a week ago. The jury will be sequestered again tonight.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:45 PM
After reflection and research, a slightly more benevolent Judge Nickerson re-convened the media informally and vacated his order for contempt hearings, as well as his ban on cameras. Case law from the SJC supports the media's right to operate cameras outside the courthouse without restriction.
Periodically, jurors walk by the press on their way out through the lobby for a cigarette break. The media is ordered not to discuss the case as they go by. Likewise, the jury may not deliberate on their cigarette breaks. As they walked by just now, one juror expressed pleasure at the warm weather. Court officers report it is 58 degrees out.
Tuesday, November 14th 2006 12:10 PM
Judge Nickerson replaced the dismissed juror with one of the two remaining alternates. With a new juror on board, deliberations will begin again from scratch.
The juror was dismissed following the playing of phone conversations she had with Kyle Hicks, an inmate at the Barnstable House of Corrections. Hicks was arrested over the weekend in connection with a shooting in Falmouth. He is the father of the dismissed juror's child. In the course of the conversation, the juror made disparaging comments about police, such as "they're so friggin' dumb." The prosecution maintained this showed bias against the police. The former juror also referred to information supposedly broadcast on Court TV, which the prosecution said showed she was receiving outside information about the trial. Defense attorney George objected to the dismissal saying the juror didn't discuss the case or deliberations. "To take her out now," said George, "would destroy the defendant's right to a fair trial." George said removing a juror from a deadlocked jury would be a breach of justice, but Judge Nickerson denied George's motion for a mistrial.
The juror's relation to the arrested Hicks was the subject of yesterday's closed-door discussions. At that time, Nickerson ruled the arrest of Hicks did not jeopardize the juror's ability to be fair and impartial. The ruling was based on the juror's report that she had only limited contact with Hicks. However, this morning, Nickerson ruled the phone conversations revealed an "active relationship" between the juror and Hicks. The discripency, Nickerson said, showed the juror "to be less than reliable."
Tuesday November 14, 2006 10:34 AM
A female juror was discharged at 10:20 AM this morning. The defense objected to the dismissal, and will argue for a mistrial shortly. More details on the juror's dismissial when I find out what the press is allowed to report regarding her identity/reasons for dismissal.
Monday November 13, 2006 4:00 PM
Judge orders sequestration of jury for the night. Nickerson told the jurors that they would be picked up, taken to an undisclosed hotel, fed dinner and breakfast, and then taken back to court tomorrow morning. They may not deliberate with each other overnight. Some of the jurors expressed chagrin. One female juror hung her head in her hands. The jurors were told by Nickerson that they were NOT being sequestered because they told the judge they were deadlocked.
Monday November 13, 2006 2:30 PM
The jury sent a note to Judge Nickerson saying they are deadlocked and can not reach a verdict on any of the charges. The note read in part: ""After weighing all the evidence over the past five days, we the jury have come to the conclusion that we are deadlocked in coming to a unanimous decision."
The judge responded by giving a so-called "Rodriguez" charge to the jury which is an admonition written by the state Appeals Court that the jury should keep trying to break the deadlock. Nickerson read the standard language and phraseology of the charge that includes: "It is desirable that the case be decided" and "It's your duty to reach a decision if you can conscientiously do so."
If the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict on any of the charges, a mistrial will be called and McCowen could be tried again.
Right now the judge is deciding whether the jury should be sequestered tonight at the request of defense attorney Robert George.
Monday November 13, 2006 10:45 AM
Jury back deliberating. The judge gave no explanation for closing the courtroom. There are rumors and speculation but nothing official.
Monday November 13, 2006 9:10 AM
The day (and Week Four of the trial) begins with the courtroom being cleared of reporters and spectators. No reason given. A reasonable guess would be an issue with a juror or the jury as a whole. But that's just a guess. More shortly...
Sunday November 12, 2006
Four days and counting.
Why might the jury be taking so long to reach a verdict?
On Friday the jury asked Judge Nickerson to spell out the definition of reasonable doubt. No one knows yet why this request was made but here are some areas that may be troubling the jurors:
1) Were Christopher McCowen's incriminating statements to police coerced and therefore false?
Defense attorney Robert George made much of the fact that McCowen's verbal IQ is a lowly 78 and that he was under the influence of marijuana and Percocet (a potent, opium-based pain pill) the night of his arrest and interrogation. The combination of these factors might have made him susceptible to manipulation by police who could have "fed" him information that led to the final incriminating versions of his story. Dr. Richard Ofshe, an authority on police interrogation tactics called by the defense, suggested some subtle ways this might have come about. He testified that in the process of manipulating a suspect, police sometimes suggest to the suspect "the presence of a second individual" at the crime scene which, it's implied, might lessen the suspect's culpability. After first denying it, McCowen did eventually tell police he was in Worthington's home when she was murdered. But he claimed that his friend Jeremy Frazier was also there and was the actual killer.
As a side note, Ofshe testified that in most interrogations, police are primarily looking for information from the suspect that indicates his or her presence at the crime scene, a specific detail not known by the public (through the media) and perhaps not known by the police, such as the location of a missing murder weapon. McCowen apparently did not give any such details in his various statements. Because of this, Ofshe described McCowen's interrogation (outside the presence of the jury; Judge Nickerson would not allow Ofshe to testify about McCowen's specific interrogation - only about police tactics in general) as a "failed" interrogation. Despite a string of incriminating statements, McCowen didn't, for example, tell police where the murder weapon was.
2) Are there credible alternative theories of the crime that could lead to reasonable doubt?
Defense attorney George emphasized again and again to the jury that the defense had no obligation to "prove" another suspect did it. However this didn't prevent him from bringing up a number of possibilities in his closing statement. None of these possibilities are backed by hard evidence. All are purely speculative. First, Jeremy Frazier, as reflected in McCowen's statement to police and a reference by a witness to a burglary planned by Frazier of some wealthy woman's home. Second, Worthington's neighbor and ex-boyfriend Tim Arnold who was at one time the police's prime suspect. Third, a certain Dave Murphy --Jeremy Frazier's former friend and fellow worker -- who, prior to Worthington's murder, was imprisoned for fifteen years for manslaughter. Murphy might have been the man in the black vehicle who Worthington's neighbor testified he saw racing down Worthington's driveway a day before her body was discovered.
3) Is there an innocent explanation for the presence of McCowen's DNA in and on Worthington's body?
Defense attorney George hammered away at the fact that the autopsy revealed no signs of sexual trauma -- rape -- on Worthington's body. He stated that rape wasn't even considered by police until they got back the DNA results pointing to McCowen. He contended that police could not conceive of the possibility that McCowen -- a poor, black trash collector -- and Worthington -- a wealthy, educated white woman -- could have had consensual sex. Of course having consensual sex with the victim doesn't rule out the possibility that McCowen murdered her. But the jury might be troubled by the possibility that the police and prosecutors were motivated by racism in arresting McCowen in the first place and then charging him not only with rape but "aggravated" rape. Conceivably, this racism could have caused the police to doctor McCowen's statements to them.
As to this last point, Jack Coleman has an interesting blog entry today about the "To Record or Not Record" debate. Coleman writes that the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled several months before McCowen's arrest that police must have a suspect's consent to record an interrogation and if the suspect refuses, must have the suspect sign a form stating that refusal. The police followed this exact procedure with McCowen. Coleman points out that if the police had gone ahead and recorded McCowen despite his refusal, his attorney would undoubtedly have accused the police of violating the SJC's specific -- and recent -- ruling on the issue.
Friday November 10, 2006 5 PM
Court adjourned at 4 PM without a verdict. Deliberations continue at 9 AM on Monday.
Friday November 10, 2006 10:10 AM
The jury just requested Judge Nickerson define "reasonable doubt" for them. During the original charge to the jury he said proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that jurors must have an abiding conviction to a resonably degree of moral certainty that the charges against the defendant are true. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, nor does it mean that the defendant is more likely guilty than not.
Friday November 10, 2006 9:00 AM
Jury begins deliberations for fourth day.
Thursday November 9, 2006 4:00 PM
Jury goes home once again without reaching a verdict. They've been deliberating for two and a half days. Jury consists of seven women and five men. Two of them are African-Americans. Deliberations are expected to continue tomorrow morning at 9.
Thursday November 9, 2006 11:00 AM
REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK
The jury is still deliberating. Milling around the courthouse are journalists, writers, and TV crews waiting on the verdict. Posted below are interviews with a sampling of these media folks.
Beth Karas: Karas is a correspondent for Court TV. Karas discusses the judge's charge to the jury.
Listen to this interview. (5:53)
Eric Williams: Williams writes a daily blog on the trial for The Cape Cod Times. Williams discusses the emotional struggles of covering this trial.
Listen to this interview. (9:36)
Maria Flook: Flook's book Invisible Eden examines the community of the Outer Cape in the wake of Worthington's murder. It was a New York Times bestseller when it came out in 2003. She's including McCowen's trial in a forthcoming edition, and has been in communication with McCowen since his arrest. This includes letters and phone calls -- some very recent.
Listen to this interview. (18:03)
Megan Tench: Tench reports for the Boston Globe. Tench became friendly with many of the court's daily spectators. One of these spectators is a spouse of a juror. According to Tench, this spouse is convinced McCowen is "absolutely" not guilty. But says he (or she) has not tried to influence their spouse. The jury is not sequestered, meaning jurors have gone home every night after trial proceedings -- including during deliberations.
Listen to this interview. (14:58)
Peter Manso: Manso is the author of the book P'town: Art, Sex, and Money on the Outer Cape. At the time of McCowen's arrest, Manso agreed to write a book about the trial and has been researching the case against McCowen for over a year. He is sympathetic to the defense and believes McCowen should be found not guilty.
Listen to this interview. (43:19)
Thursday November 9, 2006 9:00 AM
Juey begins third day (second full day) of deliberations.
Photo captions and credits:
Christopher McCowen leaving court (Cape Cod Times photo)
Members of the jury leaving the courthouse after rendering a verdict (Elizabeth White photo)
(left to right) Judge Gary Nickerson, prosecutor Robert Welsh III, and defense attorney Robert George conferring (Cape Cod Times photo)
Previous week's blog entries.
