Supreme Judicial Court hears arguments in Anthony Baye arson case
1
BOSTON - Lawyers for accused arsonist Anthony Baye took their case to the state's highest court Wednesday as they try to get the central piece of evidence - Baye's purported confession - tossed out.
Baye, 27, of 85 Hawley St., has pleaded innocent in Hampshire Superior Court to multiple charges, including two counts of murder, resulting from fires he allegedly set around Northampton on Dec. 27, 2009. Killed in one of the fires set that night were Paul Yeskie Sr., 81, and Paul Yeskie Jr., 39, who were trapped in their Fair Street home.
Judge Constance Sweeney, who is overseeing the case in superior court, ruled in August that tapes of Baye's 10-hour interrogation can be used as evidence at his trial, which is expected to begin early next year. Sweeney wrote that although the troopers' techniques were problematic, Baye confessed of his own free will.
Thomas Lesser and David Hoose, two of Baye's three defense attorneys, maintain that Sweeney's ruling was wrong, and have asked the Supreme Judicial Court to reverse it. If the tapes are thrown out it could deal a devastating blow to the prosecution's case. The SJC usually renders opinions within 60 to 100 days.
In the tape, shown in court in May, Baye admits lighting some, but not all, of the fires, and tells his questioners he never meant to hurt anyone at 17 Fair St., where a fire that authorities say Baye lit on the porch spread throughout the house, trapping and killing the Yeskie father and son. Baye later backpedals, saying he was never on Fair Street the morning of the fires.
The defense and prosecution each had 15 minutes to argue their cases Wednesday, with members of the seven-judge panel frequently interrupting with pointed questions.
As the half-hour hearing drew to a close, Judge Margot Botsford referred to the interrogators, state police Trooper Michael Mazza and Sgt. Paul Zipper. She said their techniques were "troubling" and asked whether they are training younger troopers to use similar means.
Lesser took this question as a good sign. "I don't like it, was the implication," Lesser said in an interview after the hearing.
Special prosecutor Brett Vottero began his argument by describing Baye as an intelligent young man who was attending college after receiving an "impressively high" score on the SAT.
Judge Barbara Lenk cut him off. "What are you driving at?" she said. "When you have a more intelligent suspect, you can use more coercive techniques?"
Vottero said the troopers' questioning was within the law. On the other hand, Vottero said, Baye used "deliberate and bold falsehoods."
"He was quite talkative in the first hour of the interview where he's giving his false alibi," Vottero said. "He's quite clever."
Hoose said the troopers went outside the law by pledging to "go to bat" for Baye when they reported to the Northwestern district attorney's office. They promised Baye the Yeskies' deaths would be treated as "accidents."
The troopers also told Baye they had incriminating evidence, such as surveillance video and eyewitness reports, "none of which I believe exists or are a part of the record," Hoose said.
Vottero said he agreed it was "problematic to minimize what the consequences might be" but argued the troopers did not use any false evidence or deception to get Baye's confession.
Mazza, Zipper and other investigators attended Wednesday's hearing at the John Adams Courthouse, as did Baye's mother. The defendant himself was not present. He is being held without bail at the Hampshire Jail and House of Correction.
Written appeals
The SJC justices will not base their decision on oral arguments. Ahead of Wednesday's hearing, both sides filed exhaustive written arguments, quoting from the interrogation tapes, Sweeney's ruling and years' worth of case law to back up their points. The defense filed a total of 77 pages; the prosecution, 49.
In their filings, the defense argues there has been little evidence from the prosecution so far, aside from the purported confession, to show Baye set the fires he is accused of setting.
Vottero countered in his filing that the question to be considered at this stage is not whether Baye's confession was a truthful one; it is simply a question of whether Baye confessed of his own free will. It should be up to a jury to determine whether the confession is reliable, he said.
"We accept our burden to prove reliability, and we will - to the trial court," Vottero told the judges Wednesday.
Hoose said one piece of evidence that played a pivotal role in Baye's interrogation turned out not to be incriminating.
Until recently, authorities believed footage taken by a police cruiser dashboard camera showed Baye's car, and a figure resembling him, near a fire on Union Street. During the interrogation, Mazza showed Baye a still image from the cruiser camera, and got Baye to say that the person shown in it "must be" him. Subsequently, an FBI analysis showed the car was not Baye's.
Judge Robert Cordy said that revelation did not necessarily cast doubt on Baye's confession.
"Let's assume the trooper said in good faith, 'This is you,' and (Baye) said, 'Yeah.' I don't see the problem there."
Vottero noted other evidence places Baye near the scenes of the fires, including an instance where a police officer queried his license plate while responding to a vehicle fire on Williams Street. Baye also had two brief encounters with officers in the area of Crescent Street as emergency crews responded to fires in that neighborhood.
The defense has also asked the SJC to take a closer look at so-called Miranda warnings, in which police are required to inform interview subjects about their right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer. A suspect can waive those rights and speak to police without legal representation.
Key in Baye's case is the question of whether or not he was legally in police custody when he asked for an attorney, and whether the interrogation should have stopped at that point. Vottero has argued Baye was free to leave the police station at that point during the interview, and has called Baye's request for a lawyer "equivocal."
Hoose and Lesser argued that Baye did not feel free to leave, and only agreed to continue speaking with the troopers on the condition that they would not accuse him of any crimes.
The SJC, Hoose and Lesser wrote, "should hold that where police give a suspect Miranda warnings, just as the suspect is bound by the waiver of those warnings, the commonwealth is bound to honor a suspect's invocation of those rights, irrespective of custodial status."
