SJC Ruling Hovers Over 2002 Cape Slaying Case

SJC ruling hovers over 2002 Cape slaying case

By Jonathan Saltzman

Globe Staff / August 29, 2010

A lawyer for a trash collector convicted of the notorious 2002 murder and rape of a fashion writer on Cape Cod says a recent ruling by the state’s highest court in another murder case indicates that the justices may overturn his client’s conviction.

Christopher M. McCowen, the Hyannis man convicted of fatally stabbing and raping Christa Worthington in her secluded seaside house in Truro, raised the same issue on appeal that led the Supreme Judicial Court to toss an unrelated murder conviction, according to Gary G. Pelletier, who was involved in both challenges.

In its unanimous Aug. 19 ruling in a Somerset murder case, the high court held that a trial judge was wrong to let the state medical examiner testify about findings in an autopsy performed by another forensic pathologist. The testimony at the trial of Eric J. Durand, who allegedly beat his girlfriend’s 4-year-old son to death in 2003, was hearsay and violated his constitutional right of confrontation, the court said.

Pelletier, the Providence lawyer who handled Durand’s appeal, also helped McCowen’s trial attorney, Robert A. George of Boston, prepare the trash collector’s challenge, which was argued in May. And the first thing McCowen’s legal team homed in on was the Barnstable trial judge’s decision to let a substitute pathologist testify about the autopsy findings of another doctor.

“The issues are identical,’’ Pelletier said Thursday. “The same principle applies that you can’t testify to the factual findings in the report of another medical examiner.’’

Julia K. Holler, the Cape and Islands prosecutor who represented the state in the appeal, acknowledged in her brief that it was wrong for a substitute pathologist to testify in the McCowen case on the findings of the other doctor’s autopsy.

But because George did not object at trial, she wrote, the SJC must limit its review to determining whether the testimony created a “substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice,’’ a higher legal standard than the high court used in the Durand appeal. The testimony under scrutiny in McCowen’s case did not meet that standard, she wrote.

Holler also wrote that George used some of the disputed testimony of Dr. Henry Nields, the forensic pathologist from the state medical examiner’s office, to bolster the defense claim that Worthington’s time of death might have been much later than authorities claimed. McCowen told police that he had consensual sex with Worthington and beat her but that someone else killed her later.

Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe said Friday that Nields’s testimony passed constitutional muster because the pathologist was giving his expert opinion about the cause and time of Worthington’s death, not merely regurgitating the autopsy findings, which the SJC forbade.

“You have apples and oranges,’’ he said of the two appeals.

McCowen’s appeal was argued May 7. The SJC typically issues decisions within 130 days of arguments, so the court’s ruling could be handed down by mid-September.

Worthington, a world-traveling, Vassar-educated writer, was found stabbed to death in January 2002 in her hilltop bungalow in Truro. She was 46. Her 2 1/2-year-old daughter was found clinging to her half-naked body and smeared with blood but unharmed.

The murder was the first in Truro in more than 30 years and led to a highly public 39-month criminal investigation, including a controversial dragnet in early 2005, when authorities sought to collect DNA samples from all men in Truro.

In April 2005, police charged McCowen, who authorities said barely knew Worthington. McCowen, who had a criminal record and was the subject of at least four restraining orders by women on the Cape, picked up trash weekly from Worthington’s house.

McCowen agreed to give police a DNA sample three months after Worthington’s slaying. But police did not collect his DNA until two years later, and then it took more than a year to match the sample with DNA from Worthington’s body.

At the time, O’Keefe attributed the delays to several factors, including investigators’ focus on other suspects and a lack of resources at the State Police crime laboratory.

Fourteen months after McCowen’s November 2006 conviction for Worthington’s murder and rape, Barnstable Superior Court Judge Gary A. Nickerson, who had presided at trial, held an unusual two-day public hearing to interview a dozen members of the jury about several allegations of racial bias. The allegations included that a white juror referred to McCowen as a “big black man’’ during deliberations, spurring a confrontation in the jury room.

Based on the allegations, McCowen’s trial lawyer, George, filed a motion for a new trial. But Nickerson ruled in April 2008 that the white juror’s remark was an innocent description and rejected the request for a new trial. McCowen’s lawyers have challenged that ruling in their appeal as well.

Saltzman can be reached at .

© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.

BenWhite wrote:
The SJC review is essential, given the case similarities of hearsay testimony to the Durand case, but I tend to agree with the DA. The M.D. testifying on the autopsy report was rendering an opinion as to date and time of death.
One has to accept that an autopsy report stands on it's own merits and subsequent review and testimony as evidence would be qualified in court. In other words, if the original pathologist were unavailable or deceased, is the autopsy report no longer valid without that prime testimony?
I do have to take exception to Mr. Saltzman's reporting though. It detracts from the story to call Christa Worthington's cottage, "secluded seaside house" in one paragraph and then refer to it as her, "hilltop bungalow" in another in the same article. The Depot Road address is just south of the Pamet, well inland from the bay side and is not exactly on top of a hill. (It is in an area of rolling worn drumlins and forested dunes and few have even views of the bay.) Nitpicking maybe, but a reporter supposedly on the scene would not confuse the descriptions nor use inaccurate ones to color what is, in itself, a compelling story.
8/29/2010 4:34 AM EDT
Recommend (6) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ cgmpi wrote:
BenWhite you have got to be kidding.
8/29/2010 6:58 AM EDT
Recommend (2) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ GuyfromLowell wrote:
Newspaper only sell when they sensationalize a story. In other words, embellish or conveniently leave out facts.
8/29/2010 7:24 AM EDT
Recommend (1) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ BillyRay777 wrote:
There is something rather unseemly about this case, almost as if the authorities had to make sure someone was convicted of this crime, to make it appear as if they were doing something about it. It just feels like something is missing here.
8/29/2010 8:08 AM EDT
Recommend (4) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ policestate wrote:
Something tells me this man is innocent, why the hell would he have any reason to kill this woman? He didn't. This was obviously done by someone who had known her for longer than a fling, and had it out for her, but sadly it's always easier to just convict the black guy, since few will object.
8/29/2010 8:24 AM EDT
Recommend (2) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ BenWhite wrote:
@cgmpi- Kidding? Which part? Not I. I meant every word.
That said, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. I have zero tolerance for convicting for the sake of closing a case.
As for the location, I know the area and it is not "seaside".
8/29/2010 8:38 AM EDT
Recommend (5) / Report abuse / Permalink
Quasimodo wrote:
The SJC is a killer's best friend.
8/29/2010 8:55 AM EDT
Recommend / Report abuse / Permalink
/ saveourpastime wrote:
policestate:
You left out the possibility of "racial profiling" here!
Just in case we're not on board with your other well
thought-out and succinct observations.
My God.
8/29/2010 9:25 AM EDT
Recommend (3) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ windyjammer wrote:
policestate wrote:
Something tells me this man is innocent, why the hell would he have any reason to kill this woman? He didn't. This was obviously done by someone who had known her for longer than a fling, and had it out for her, but sadly it's always easier to just convict the black guy, since few will object.
======
Many who are disposed to violent crime kill just for the sake of killing. They don't need a reason. I'm puzzled as to why you think it is so obvious that the person who killed Worthington must have known her for some time and had some kind of grudge against her. McCowen's DNA was found on her body. That's pretty damning evidence.
8/29/2010 12:20 PM EDT
Recommend (3) / Report abuse / Permalink
Ads by Google
what's this?
Police Schools
Request free Information from Police Training Schools Near You!

/ hcunningham wrote:
I share this concern of BenWhite:
[...]
>One has to accept that an autopsy report stands on it's own merits and subsequent review and testimony as evidence would be qualified in court. In other words, if the original pathologist were unavailable or deceased, is the autopsy report no longer valid without that prime testimony?
[end of quote]
Indeed the issue extends beyond autopsy reports. All witness and suspect testimony should be videotaped from the very beginning. That way the case would still be there even if a witness is murdered or frightened into disappearing.
From the defendant's side, videotapes would provide a check, whether police "reports" ignore pro-defendant testimony and distort what remains into false evidence of guilt. In the McCowen-Worthington case, for example, we are told over and over again that McCowen admitted having sex with Worthington (under incriminating circumstances), but the police made a deliberate decision *not* to videotape McCowen's testimony. The police report of McCowen's supposed testimony should be suppressed as unverifiable hearsay.
8/29/2010 3:06 PM EDT
Recommend (2) / Report abuse / Permalink
sox-n-pats-fan wrote:
Let's see, the garbage man had consensual interracial sex with a sophisticated woman of the world, admits that he beat her but someone else came along and killed her.
VERY VALID ARGUMENT
8/29/2010 4:35 PM EDT
Recommend / Report abuse / Permalink
/ korncrasy wrote:
Let me begin by saying I do not know either party.I watched every second of the trial.Innocent.It was a Cape Cod good old boys cover up,the little punk runs free.The frame of a black man.
8/29/2010 5:38 PM EDT
Recommend (1) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ Archimedes wrote:
Another cheap excuse for the criminal lovers to free a murderer. Execute them and be done with them altogether.
8/29/2010 6:37 PM EDT
Recommend (1) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ Archimedes wrote:
policestate:
You must think that every convicted murderer is innocent and every murder was done by the nameless, faceless, unknown, unseen, entity of "someone else". Who then? You must also think that no murder ever occured.
You have a screen name that accurately announces your opinions.
8/29/2010 6:45 PM EDT
Recommend (2) / Report abuse / Permalink
sox-n-pats-fan wrote:
korncrasy wrote:
Let me begin by saying I do not know either party.I watched every second of the trial.Innocent.It was a Cape Cod good old boys cover up,the little punk runs free.The frame of a black man.
****************************
Sox-n-pats-fan replies:
Let's see, the garbage man, who has a history of sexual violence X 4, by his own admission, "had consensual interracial sex with a sophisticated woman of the world", admitted that he beat her but someone else came along and killed her.
VERY VALID ARGUMENT, KORNCRASY
I hope when this guy is released, he sexually attacks your sister, your wife, your daughter or anyone else in your life you care about.
8/29/2010 11:16 PM EDT
Recommend / Report abuse / Permalink
Ads by Google
what's this?
Everest College Programs
Enhance Your Legal Skills With A Criminal Justice Degree. Enroll Now
info.EverestCollege.edu
/ stickybuns wrote:
Actually, this article is factually wrong. The defendant said he went home after Frazier and his buddies started getting wild at that after-party. He went to the Juice Bar, the after-party, then home. That's it! It was that interrogation that got everything messed up. They WERE looking to pin this on him...and you know for a fact that they can get innocent people to admit things in interrogations--AND as a mater of fact, I remember attorney George SAYING AT the trial, "My client does not know who killed Ms Worthington."
The media gort so much of this hyped and just WRONG. From the start.
8/30/2010 4:47 AM EDT
Recommend / Report abuse / Permalink
/ Juan-o wrote:
The issue of whether the "wrong man" was convicted is not the issue on appeal. The issue is whether the testimony of how the wounds were inflicted. If there is no question about whether the wounds suggest atrocity and cruelty or self-defense,I expect any error will be deemed harmless.
A note from the real world: men sometimes injure or kill women or other men for the flimsiest of reasons, e.g., verbal insult. God bless you if your life is so sheltered that you have no experience of such things
8/30/2010 8:54 AM EDT
Recommend (1) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ bills64 wrote:
I agree with BillyRay777. This case has the feel of a politically expedient prosecution, not the truth. The DA was under tremendous pressure to find the killer and he took the easiest, most cynical route to a conviction.
8/30/2010 12:31 PM EDT
Recommend (1) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ stickybuns wrote:
No, my life is not sheltered, that is why I am wise to the ways of power and how corrupt it is. Perhaps YOU are the sheltered one!!!
And, if you can even defend a trial where there was no evidence of him being there, save 72 hr old sperm...they didn't even test the sperm found on her leg...just ASSUMED it was his, had evidence that didn't match him, and YET they pinned it on him? Had an EYE WITNESS who saw a white man speeding out of her driveway on the day before she was found, and ignored him.... Why? Because the defendant is black, they wanted a guilty party and that jury was racist!
Oh, maybe you are shelterd from racism as well?
Sham of the century!
8/30/2010 4:22 PM EDT
Recommend (1) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ Juan-o wrote:
Don't play the race card. Race is too weak a factor indicating guilt to be reliable evidence, but it is no a badge of innocence either(black men rape, rob and kill in numbers disproportionate to their numbers).
I've been in crimional justice for twenty-five years, and in political studies longer. Racial bias comes in several colors, including white and black.
8/30/2010 9:34 PM EDT
Recommend / Report abuse / Permalink
/ bemoreinformed wrote:
There was no motive for McGowen to kill her. He was having sex with her on a somewhat regular basis from what came out during the trial. So that also brings into question the rape charge. And he was never found with any of her posessions on him so why the burglary charge? Where's the proof of any wrongdoing? He had sex with her. So??? That doesn't mean he killed her. It just doesn't. But the other punk mentioned in here and on stand during trial, that's the one I'd put my money on for doing her in. He's a rotten little punk and interestingly has been very quiet since this all went down. Hmmm...
8/30/2010 10:41 PM EDT
Recommend (1) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ Juan-o wrote:
The fundamental issue in street crime, as opposed to white-color crime, is the gap between the reasons "why" and the amount of violence done. Look at the appeals reports of for the lart twenty-five years. Why should anyone rob a convenience store to net $100? Why should anyone rape an old lady? (as Benjy LaGuare's own DNA expert demonstrated that Benjy did).Street crime is,to rational observers, always seems irrational, but it happens nonetheless.
8/30/2010 11:02 PM EDT
Recommend (1) / Report abuse / Permalink
/ stickybuns wrote:
OK--why then, had he done it, would he stick around here and wait to get caught?
HAD he done it, he would have run!!! ESPECIALLY since he is black...and it does matter down here...you should have seen the racial-bias hearing. Those people were lying through their teeth and the judge helped them, IMO.
They played a game making fun of race in the jury room...until the black woman juror came into the room. One of them said "This is why I don't like black people..you see how they can be."
"He scares me."
"if a big black man hit her it would make those bruises."..."What does black have to do with it?"
Three of the jurors felt so bad that they went to the judge...one was crying because he said they just convicted an innocent man. The judge said, "don't worry--he gets an appeal"....
Nah...this was not justice, this was a travesty of justice. It needs to be rectified.
9/3/2010 8:32 PM EDT
Recommend