Massachusetts School of Law, Writing & Legal Advocacy, Spring 2014
Professor Paula Kaldis, Director, Legal Research & Writing
Trial Memo Assignment
Carl Mooney, sixteen years old, has just been convicted of second-degree murder in the Middlesex Superior Court for the January 16, 2013 drowning of Paul Nolan. Mooney’s case had been tried in Superior Court pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 119, section 74, which deprives the Juvenile Court of jurisdiction over indictments charging murder when the accused is fourteen years of age or older. After the jury found Carl guilty of murder in the second degree, the Superior Court judge sentenced him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole in fifteen years. (According to recent precedent, juveniles in Massachusetts cannot receive life without parole, so this is currently the harshest sentence available to the court).
Following imposition of the sentence on January 3, 2014, Carl Mooney’s counsel has filed a motion to reduce the verdict pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(b) (2). In support of the motion, counsel included the Psychological Evaluation performed on the defendant by Doctor Beatrice Keller, expert for the defense. This report wasincluded in the evidence presented to the jury at trial. In its consideration of this motion, the court will decide, “Whether a reduction in the level of culpability is more consonant with justice.” Commonwealth v. Woodward, 427 Mass. 659 (1998). The defendant argues, that in light of recent United States and Supreme Judicial Court precedents, that he should receive a manslaughter conviction, which would give the court more discretion in sentencing rather than the imposition of life with parole eligibility that gives the court no discretion to consider his youth and circumstances.
The facts of Carl’s trial are as follows:
Carl Mooney turned fifteen years old on January 2, 2013, two weeks before he killed eighteen-year-old Paul Nolan. Carl was a junior in high school;Paul Nolan was a freshman attending the University of Massachusetts, Lowell campus.
The investigation began when Paul Nolan’s body was found in the Merrimack River when he had not returned home on the evening of January 16, 2013. At first Nolan’s parents organized search parties. Three days later, after a warm spell melted the ice, his body was found in the canal behind Jay’s Crazee Place, the bar where he had been drinking. The water was frozen so his body was well preserved. His arms were bent across his chest, and he was also biting his bottom lip, as if he was cold, according to detectives. His shoes were tied, his belt buckled, his keys clipped to his belt loop, and his wallet had about $90 in it. His cell phone, however, was missing. It was found later in the water.
As Nolan had been drinking at Jay’s Crazee Place, the death was initially thought to be either an accidental death or a suicide. The coroner ruled Nolan’s death an accidental drowning. There were no signs of trauma, not even a bump on the head.
But police detectives believed there was something that did not make sense, something unexplainable - Nolan was a healthy, robust young man and hadn't had enough to drink to become disoriented.And – this was the clincher - A smiley-face symbol was drawn on the bridge near where Nolan’s body was discovered. The mouth on the smiley face, on closer inspection, was actually the number of Nolan’s missing cell phone.
The police investigation included interviewing all the patrons, the bartender, the manager and the bouncer at Jay’s bar. Nolan had come alone – he lived nearby and frequently walked – and most in the bar stated he left alone. It was the bouncer, Teddy Hanes, and one customer, Bella Loki, who both stated they were outside smoking when they said bye to Nolan around 1:20 a.m., and watched him walk away. They also stated they thought they saw him in the distance walking with someone, but it was far and they couldn’t say, for sure but they thought it was a male.
Carl wasn’t a suspect – police never would have found him, if it weren’t for the smiley face. His history teacher, Joseph Cogan, assigned a project to the class. The students were to choose a symbol, such as an Egyptian ankh, or the Greek letter Omega, and write a six page paper about the symbol, its origins, purpose and use in the future. The papers were due on January 21; Cogan collected them, and then took them home to grade. Cogan was concerned because, instead of a six page essay, Carl had downloaded from a conspiracy theory website a discussion thread about unexplained deaths of young men in frigid creeks, rivers and streams, and the killer’s calling card being a smiley face. The interesting thing was that Carl had downloaded this material on January 10, six daysbefore Nolan’s disappearance on January 16. Cogan was concerned about Carl, but not that Carl had killed Nolan, as he did not have knowledge of the smiley face and its connection to Nolan’s death. Rather Cogan was concerned that Carl needed psychological help of some sort.
Before this incident, Carl had been relatively quiet, an average student, not popular, but also not the type that would get bullied. Carl lived with his parents. His older brother Mike, who was eighteen, had left home the year before and was living in San Francisco, working in a coffee shop. His mother Maureen worked nights at Dunkin Donuts and was a recovering alcoholic who had been sober three years. His father Joe was a clothing factory supervisor who also drank heavily and also sometimes used drugs such as marijuana and cocaine. Joe had a criminal record that included possession of marijuana, assault and battery, and domestic assault. There were no restraining orders, however. Carl did not have a record, and neither did his brother.
On January 22, Cogan reported his concerns about Carl to the Vice Principal Ronald Godfrey. Detectives Matthew Peron and Leon Ziegler had actually met with Godfrey earlier that day as they had some information about students who sometimes went to Jay’s Bar. So Godfrey, who had just talked with the detectives, was holding their business card as Cogan was telling him about Carl Mooney’s Smiley Face Project. Godfrey called the detectives, and they set up a meeting with Carl and his mother.
Carl and his mother were informed that they only wanted to ask some questions about his “research” on the smiley face killings. The meeting yielded nothing of any significance about Nolan’s death, except, when Carl and his mother got up to leave, Detective Peron mentioned that most of the deaths occurred either in winter or in some of the coldest spots in the United States. Carl then stated “well, killers have to make sure ‘he” was put in the water when the river water temperature was frigid”. That way, he said, “we really don't do the killing, the river did.” Peron then asked if Carl would be willing to come to the station the next evening with both his parents, and he said he would.
The next evening, Carl came in with his mother and father. When asked if he would be willing to talk about what he meant the day before about the river killing “him”, Carl said yes. He was then read his Miranda rights. He was asked whether he understood those rights and he responded that he did. He was also asked whether he had any trouble reading or writing and he stated he did not.
Carl then proceeded to tell the detectives that the “river” killed Nolan. When asked how he knew this for certain, Carl responded he had heard that any body that goes into freezing water automatically locks itself up and the person is literally unable to swim. In addition, if the person has consumed a little bit of the “evil” drink, he gets disoriented in the frigid waters even more quickly. So, Carl stated, he brought Nolan to the bridge as typically rivers run deep under bridges and thus Carl could easily toss him right off the bridge and he would sink.
When asked why he did this, Carl stated he “did not do it – I told you the river did it”. When asked how Nolan got into the water, Carl stated he pushed him over the bridge. He made sure that Nolan was leaning far over, as Carl had gotten Nolan’s cell phone and placed it on the ledge over the bridge so that Nolan, in attempting to get it, would be in a precarious position. Carl also said that Nolan had actually started talking with him first, as Carl was walking home from an all-night diner just as Nolan was leaving the bar. Nolan asked Carl if he had any “stuff” and Carl replied he knew where he could get some, so they began walking together. Carl asked Nolan for the cell phone so he could call “de man”. So Carl had the cell phone and pretended he had called someone, and then walked a bit faster as they approached the bridge; he then “slipped” and “dropped” the phone.
Carl had no explanation for the meaning of the smiley face, and the cell phone number smile that he placed there. According to the detectives, there was no way Carl lied about any of this, as he knew Nolan’s cell phone number, and described the clothes Nolan was wearing.
There was no question and, the defense has not raised questions about the legality of Carl Mooney’s confession. Before Carl gave his taped statement, Detective Zeigler read him the form declaring the waiver of his rights and asked Carl if he understood the waiver. Carl responded he understood the waiver. The two detectives made no promises or threats nor did they coerce, intimidate or beat Carl. Carl was cooperative and did not appear to be afraid. Both parents were present during the interrogation, and Carl consulted with them prior to making any statements.
At the end of his trial, after conviction, the defendant was sentenced in open court as follows:
ADA: The Commonwealth moves for sentencing.
The Court: Will you impose the statutory sentence?
The Clerk: Carl Mooney, on this indictment 052609, on which you are charged with murder in the second degree, the jury having returned a verdict of guilty as to murder in the second degree, the Court in consideration of your offense on this indictment orders that you will be imprisoned in the Massachusetts Correctional Institute, Walpole, for the term of your natural life, with parole eligibility not earlier than fifteen years.
------
For this assignment, half of the class will represent Carl Mooney, and half will represent the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The assignment is to write a memorandum of law to the Superior Court arguing in support of or in opposition to the 25(b)(2) motion.
Beatrice Keller, Psy.D., M.S, R.N.
Lowell Memorial Hospital
Law and Psychiatry Service
1 Hospital Drive
Lowell, MA 01845
Name: Carl Mooney
Docket No.: Middlesex Superior Court No.
Date of Birth: 01/02/98
Referral Source: Defense Attorney
Date of Referral: 02/27/2013
Date of Report: 7/17/2013
Identifying Information:
Case Type and charges:
Carl Mooney was charged with Second Degree Murder of Paul Nolan for an incident that occurred on January 16, 2013. Carl was 15 years old at the time and placed at the Division of Youth Services (DYS) Detention Center in Plymouth. His Defense Attorney requested a forensic evaluation.
Structure of Evaluation
Sources of Information:
• Lowell Public Schools educational record.
• Lowell Community Health Center medical records.
• Middlesex Health Services medical record.
• Lowell General Hospital medical record.
• Grand Jury testimony.
• Police reports and related documents including witness statements.
Non- confidentiality Warning:
Prior to my interviews with Carl, I informed him that I am a licensed psychologist in the state of Massachusetts, and that I was asked to see him at the request of his attorney. I informed him that I would be preparing a report of the interviews and my observations to his attorney and that I might be asked to testify in court regarding my report. I told Carl that he did not have to participate in the interviews if he chose not to and that he could refuse to answer any or all of my questions. Carl agreed to the interviews and indicated that he understood my warnings that this information would not be confidential.
Course of Evaluation:
I interviewed Carl a total of four times for a total of eleven hours for the purpose of assessing his psychological functioning. His attorney was present the first and last interview. During the second interview, I was concerned about Carl’s mental status. He informed me that he had been on mood stabilizing medication while at DYS.
I also administered two personality tests, the Rorschach Inkblot Test and the Minnesota Multiphase Personality Test-2nd Edition
.
Clinica1 Data
Social history:
Carl lived with his parents. His older brother Mike, who was eighteen, had left home the year before and was living in San Francisco, working in a coffee shop. According to Carl, Mike needed to get far away from this “fucked up family”. Carl missed Mike terribly – Mike frequently protected Carl from their parents’ abuse. Carl’s mother Maureen currently works nights at Dunkin Donuts and is a recovering alcoholic. His father Joe is a clothing factory supervisor who also drank heavily and also sometimes used drugs such as marijuana and cocaine. Joe has a criminal record that included possession of marijuana, assault and battery, and domestic assault. Carl and his brother Mike have no criminal record.
Medical and Mental Health History:
Carl’s medical history is unremarkable except for mild asthma diagnosed at age 4 or 5. After Carl’s arrest for the current charges, the DYS clinical staff noted that Carl exhibited symptoms of anxiety, labile mood, anger, and agitation. He tended to be fearful and was aggressive. Carl improved on Neurontin, a mood stabilizer, He appeared calmer, less angry, and his thinking was clearer. A note indicated that he became soft-spoken and polite.
Substance abuse history:
Carl stated that he started drinking alcohol at 11 and started smoking marijuana at 12. He experienced blackouts with alcohol from time to time.
Current Circumstances and Functioning:
Mental Status:
Carl presents as a young man, somewhat short of stature, looking younger than his stated age of 16. He was alert and oriented to time, place and person. No abnormal movements or behavior were noted. Speech was within normal limits for rate, rhythm and prosody. He was cooperative and forthcoming during the clinical interviews. Carl was generally realistic about his situation.
During the first interview, Carl said that he was managing reasonably well in jail and denied feeling depressed or anxious. He made good eye contact and spoke spontaneously. Affect was muted but broad and appropriate to the content of the interview.
During the second interview, Carl appeared depressed as he walked and talked with his head down and made little eye contact. He acknowledged feeling depressed and said that he was having difficulty controlling his behavior and felt agitated much of the time. He said that he was trying to avoid any disciplinary action but was fearful that he would lose control of his behavior. 1 asked whether he was having difficulty with the older inmates or correctional staff. He said he was well treated by the staff and there were no specific problems with the other inmates, However, Carl indicated that he is fearful in prison because he is young and physically small (5’6”). He has experienced increasing depression and feels despondent about life. He cries at night in his cell and has suicidal thoughts at times. He said that he thinks about doing “stupid stuff” and that his emotions are all over the place. “There is so much pain in me but it is hard to cry.”
Carl denied perceptual disturbances of any kind such as auditory or visual hallucinations. Speech was logical and goal oriented. Thought processes were within normal limits with no evidence of psychosis, delusions or unusual preoccupations.
Carl denied suicidal/homicidal thoughts or intent. There was no evidence of excessive guilt, phobias, obsessions, compulsions or ideas of reference or influence.
Carl was estimated to be of average intelligence. Concentration and memory were adequate for the exam. Cognition was grossly intact. When asked about neurovegetative (biological) symptoms of depression on the second interview, Carl said that he was sleeping and eating but he tended to be apathetic and felt little pleasure. Judgment and insight appeared to be mildly impaired.