Mortimer wants to keep details sealed
Thomas Mortimer IV – accused of killing his wife, Laura Mortimer, his mother-in-law, Ellen Stone, and his children, Thomas V (4) and Charlotte (2) – wants to keep certain details about the case against him sealed. Today at 2:00 in courtroom 530 of the Middlesex Superior Court, lawyers for Mortimer and for the state argued about a defense motion to seal the statement of the case.
Actually, Mortimer’s defense lawyer, Denise Regan, and Assistant District Attorney Adrienne Lynch reached a compromise prior to today, agreeing to redact four lines from the statement of the case and make the rest of it public. The four lines (or sentences – it’s unclear which) in question are on page 7 of the 9-page statement and begin with the word “I” and end with the word “myself.”
Lynch maintained that there was “nothing inaccurate, untruthful, or misleading” in the original, un-redacted statement of the case, but she agreed to release only the edited version in order to protect the well-being of third parties.
Funny side note: Around this time, during a bench conference, Mortimer, who was quiet and well-behaved and wearing no restraints of any sort, was led out of the courtroom by officers. A minute later they brought him back in wearing handcuffs and leg shackles. I guess the officers forgot to put cuffs on him at first?
Despite the prosecution and defense’s agreement, the judge, Elizabeth Fahey, was skeptical that even the four lines should be impounded, and she asked Regan to explain.
Regan, as she did at last week’s hearing, argued that Mortimer’s right to a fair trial outweighs the public’s interest in having the information. ”Mr. Mortimer’s right to a fair trial is inarguably an important government interest,” she said. According to Regan, the public does not have a fundamental right to the information contained in a statement of the case. There is no rule requiring one to be filed, they are filed regularly only in Middlesex and Suffolk Counties, and the content of the four lines in question “is not information that the public needs to have to evaluate the proceedings in this case.” She said that the content of those four lines was “highly inflammatory” and “upsetting” and “would seriously impair the defendant’s right to a fair trial” and ”prejudice a vast array of jurors against him.” She pointed out that the case has garnered national publicity, including a People magazine article, so a change of venue would not remedy this prejudice. Additionally, it would put Mortimer in danger from other inmates at the Billerica House of Correction and would be ”unduly stressful” to his relatives. Even if the public had a First Amendment right to the full, original statement of the case, which Regan argues they do not, this right is not as important as Mortimer’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
Timothy Madden, a lawyer for the Boston Globe and Associated Press, spoke briefly. He argued that nothing he’s heard suggests Mortimer’s right to a fair trial is at risk, and the defense can always weed out biased jurors through the voir dire process.
Judge Fahey, took the motion under advisement, which means that the mysterious four lines will remain unknown until she makes her decision. If she does agree to seal them, it is unclear for how long.
The judge also addressed a different issue today: whether Mortimer should have a taxpayer-funded defense. After his arraignment last week, he was interviewed by the probation department in the presence of his lawyer and filled out a short form about his finances, where he mentioned an IRA (containing $13,000) and two cars. Later, however, he was ordered to fill out a longer form when his lawyer was not present, and he disclosed the existence of a college fund for his children, which contained $25,000.
To settle this question, Judge Fahey decided to question Mortimer himself. After standing at the defense table, raising his right hand as best he could, and being sworn in, Mortimer said, in response to the judge’s questions, that neither he nor his wife has ever owned any real estate, and that he lived in an apartment in South Boston for “approximately 18 months” before moving into his mother-in-law’s Winchester home. In a quiet, polite voice, he said that he told the probation department about all of his bank accounts, except “there was one bank account that we had but we closed it down.” He said that he omitted the college fund on the short form because it was in his wife’s name, not his own: “Last week I was only asked about my personal accounts, so that’s the information I gave.”
Regan argued that Mortimer should only have to pay $10,000 because he “is incarcerated and has no income” and “the cost of hiring counsel in a first-degree murder case is extremely high.” She objected to the fact that Mortimer had filled out the long form without her knowledge or presence and said that he was nervous when he filled out the short form and was not trying to deceive anyone. The college funds, she added, may end up going to Laura’s relatives and not to Mortimer.
Judge Fahey rejected most of Regan’s arguments and ruled that Mortimer is “indigent but able to contribute” and must pay $40,000 toward the cost of his defense.
The next court date will be September 27. Stay tuned.
Further coverage from the Associated Press, Winchester Star, Boston Herald, and Winchester Patch.