(0 .20-te HAMPDEN, ss. SUPERIOR COURT INDICTMENT NO.15-948, COMMONWEALTH HAMPDEN county SOMERIoR Sount we TILED MAURICE YOUNG OCT 19 206 DEFENDANT. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENDANT ISSUANCE OF A SUMMONS TO THE SPRINGFIELD POLICE, ‘Aer heating at which legal counse! forthe City of Springfield appeared, defend ant’s motion under Mass. R, Crim. P. 17 (a) (2) for issuance ofa summons tothe Spring field Police Departinent will be ALLOWED in part, only as tothe roquested peciient witness statements pertaining to intemal investigations of Officers Greg Big and Luke Cournoyer conducted by the Springfield Police Department itera investigations unit. ‘The rghit ofa eximinal defendant to police department intemal afairs investigatory materials as adressod in Commonwealth Wants, 426 Mass, 639, 612-643 (1998), whee the Supreme lucia Court held u's right of access to information gathered by an internal afi an whether the investigatory materials are or are ‘subject to disclosure as public records, See G. Lc. 66, § 10, generally re- ‘quiring disclosure of public records, and G. L. ¢. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth, providing certain exemptions. Even ifthe custodian of internal affairs doc- "uments could meet the statutory burden (G. Le, 66, § 10 [e}) of showing ‘with specificity that an exemption applies, «criminal defendant may never theless havea right to obtain such documents. In Bowgas v. Chief of Police lof Lexington, 371 Mass. 59,64 (1976), we stated tha, ifa defendant wants information not available asa public record, "such discovery should follow norms criminal eases where is availabilsy Hes the dis corel ch under standards developed by this court.” (emphasis supplied).Inthe instant ease, on June 27, 2015, Officers Bigda and Coumoyer entered the defendant’ residence at 25 Reed Street, Springfield, Massachusetts where a search con- ducted pursuant to a warrant yielded controlled substances on the defendant’ person, in the kitchen and in defendant's bedroom. Based, in part on the fruits ofthe search in which Officers Greg Bigela and Luke Cournoyer partiefpated, defendant was charged with viols- tions ofthe Massachusetts controlled substance las, G. L.€. 94C. | find that relevance is established under Mass. R. Crim P.17 (a) (2) as to the requested percipient witness statements in the internal investigation files of OMfcers Bigda and Cournoyer because both are the subject of an intemal investigation which concerns the issue, inter alia, of planting controlled substances far the purpose of issuing criminal pro- “Aa to pereipient witnesses, whose statements are plainly relevant and may be &x- ‘culpatory (at least for impeachment), we see no reason generally to protect their statements from disclosure, although in a specific case the police department may be able to demon- strate that there is a good reason for nondisclosure of some or all of @ witness's statement, ‘See, e.g, Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 421 Mass. 272, 274 {] (1995) (surveillance loca- tion privilege); Commonwealth v. Lugo, 406 Mass, $65, $70 [] (1990) (informer's priv lege)." Commonwealth v. Wanis, supra at 644 | find that defendant has demonstrated that “there isa specific, good faith reason {for believing that the information is relevant to a material sue inthe eximinal proceedings and could be of real benefit tothe defense.” Id. at 644-645,ORDER For the above reasons, a Rule 17 (a) (2) summons SHALL ISSUE to the Keeper ‘of Records, Commissioner's Offic, Springfield Police Department, forthe requested per pion witness statements pertaining to intemal investigations of Officers Greg Bigda and Luke Cournoyer,Asto defendants request for peeipient witness statements pertaining intemal investigations, if any exist, ofthe other police officers named in defendant's mo- tin, 1 find on the record before me that relevance has ot been established under Rule 17 (@) @), and the motion, to that extent, is DENIED. PROTECTIVE ORDER ‘Atthe bearing, lepal counsel forthe City made me aware ofan October 13, 2016 ‘written request to the City from the United States Department of Juste, made through the United States Attorney, Chet of the Springfield Branch Offic, Kevin O'Regan, that be- cause the Justice Departments ongoing federal investigation ofthe matter relating tothe investigation of tw juveniles in Palmer Massachusetts on February 27, 2016, and Sping- field Police Officer Greg Bigda, would likely be prejudiced by public disclosure ofthe ‘audio/visual recording of the interrogations othe internal investigations ofthe mater tht such material not be publicly disclosed, For this eason, pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. () (6), presently, I will ORDER that disclosure of the requested materials shall be subject to a protective order limiting dissemiCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS "THE TRIAL COURT sar coun SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT DICTMENT N18 2 Wow INDICTMENT No. 15-0948 | “ ‘Har =F - commonweaurt SRHERESL coun | Ir FILED Jib lo v OCT 12 2016 Sap MAURICE YOUNG ben Gb MOTION FOR COURT ISSUANCE OF A SUMMONS TO THE SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL INVESTIGATION U [Now comes MAURICE YOUNG and respectfully requests, pursuant to Mass. R (Crim. P. 17(9)@), that this Honoruble Court issue a summons tothe Keeper of Records at the Commissioner's Office of the Springfield Police Department forall pereipient witness ‘statements taken by the Springfield Police Department internal Investigation Unit ‘pursuant to any investigations of the following officers of the Springfield Police Department arising from citizen complaint: Michael Goggins, Mark Templeman Luke Cournoyer, Edward Kalish, C. Del La Cruz, Juan Rodtiguez, Greg Bigda, Lt. Steven Kent, Lt Alberto Ayala, Daniel Branton and Robert Bruno, In support of this motion, the defendant states that Officers Greg Bigda and Luke | Courmoyer were displayed on a videotape following the ares of three juveniles atthe | Palmer Police Department for stealing an unmarked police car. Officer Bigda went into the holding cell of the three juveniles without a parent’s consent or presence. Officer ‘Bigda remarked that he couid plant akilo of cocaine on a person, make the charge stick and have the person serve 15 years in prison, Officer Bigda futher stated that “whatever Tput in the police report is the truth.” Officer Bigda additionally stated to a juvenile that 'm not hampered by the truth because I don’t give a fuck.” Officer Bigda told the juvenile “people like you belong in jail” He also told te juvenile “I'l charge you with | “whatever.” While officer Bigda made these comments tothe juveniles, Officer | Cournoyer stood by in silent compliance. | “The defense asserts thatthe Officer Bigda’s revelations on the videotape demonstrate his personal belies as a police officer regarding defendants. His revelations ‘were affirmed by Officer Counoyer who stood by in silence as Officer Bigda berated the juveniles in varying degrees of speech. The Nareoties Department contain officers that frequently conduct surveillance, purchase narcotics, and execute search warrants as a | team, The officer's credibility and reliability is the sole basis for issuance of search svarrants. The intemal affairs records of ths team of officer is material and relevant totexmine if there is nexus between Officer Bigda’s comments along with Officer ‘Coumoyer silent affirmation and the ether officers of the Narcotics team that participated in this investigation. Date: October 11, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, MAURICE YOUNG 1389 Main Street, Suite 404 Springfield, MA 01103 (413) 746-8441HAMPDEN COUNTY COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ‘SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT INDICTMENT No. 15-0948 COMMONWEALTH MAURICE YOUNG AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR COURT ISSUANCE OF A SUMMONS » 2» 3) 4 3 9 I, recy Denean, under oath, depose and state: ‘Twas appointed to represent Maurice Young, Mr. Young is charged in the above captioned matter with trafficking in a controlled substance, cosine, in violation of G. L.€. 94C, 8, 32B(0)(Ds possession of ammunition without a FLD. eard in violation of M.G.L, ¢. 269 5. 10¢h) while previously convicted of two serious drug offenses pursuant 0 G.L. ¢. 269 s10G(b); possession ofa controlled substance, cocaine, as & “subsequent offender in violation of M.G.L. c. 94C s. 32A(6) & (@); possession ‘with intent to distribute a clas b substance, pheneyelidine, as a subsequent offender in violation of M.GLL,c. 94C 5. 32A(b}; possession of a class d substance, marijuana, asa subsequent offender in violation of M.G.L.c. 94 ‘-32C(b); and violation of a drug fee school zone in violation of M.G.L.c 940,325. Officers arested Mr. Young following the execution of search wanrant at 25 Reed Street, Springfield MA. “The officers that participated in the search warrant are as follows: Michael Goggins, Mark Templeman Luke Cournoyer, Edward Kalish, C. Del La Graz, Juan Rodriguez, Greg Bigda, Lt Steven Kent, Lt Alberto Ayala, Daniel Branton and Robert Bruno, Officers Greg Bigda and Luke Cournoyer were the subject of an internal alfaies investigation following their questioning of three juveniles ina Palmer Police Department without parental participation. “The meeting with the juveniles was audio and video recorded,% 10) i) 12) By 4) 13) 16) 1) 18) During the course ofthis meeting, Officer Bigda can be overheard making the following comments: ‘4. He could planta kilo of cocaine on a person, make the charge stick and have the person serve 15 years in prison. bb, “Whatever I pat into a police reports the truth.” «e. “Pm not hampered by the truth because I don't give a fuck.” 4d. “People like you belong in jail,” and “I'l charge you with whatever” Officer Cournoyer stood by inthe cell shaking his head in affirmation at times and never prevented olficer Bigda from making comments that were clearly threats and acts of intimidation Officer Bigda additionally commented that he would beat the fuck out of «| juvenile when they retum to Springfield. ‘Upon information and belief the Springfield Police Department Internal Investigation Unit conducted an investigation into this interrogation ofthe {hyve juveniles. ‘Upon information and belief as pat ofthis investigation, the Intemal Investigation Unit made a recommendation tothe District Attorney's Office for prosecution of Officer Bigda. Officers Bigda and Cournoyer are members of the Narcotics Division of the Springfield Police Departinent, Officer Bigda has been a member of the Narcoties Department for over 12 years He has participated in numerous arosts for narcotic possessory offenses. ‘He has authored numerous applications for search warrants whet he swore ‘under oath that the information in the application was true ‘He, along with other members ofthis Naveotc’s team, have been the subject ‘of intemal affair investigations regarding allegations of missing defembans money following arrest He, along with other members ofthis Narcotc’s team, have been the subject of internal affairs investigation regarding their conduct during the arvest of defendant and during the execution of search warrants ‘Search wartaat execution caes rise and fall upon the credibility ofthe police “officers that apply for and execute the search warrant. 49) 20) 2 2) 23) 28) 25) 26) Signed under the pains and penalti “They are the sole witnesses that testify as fo the location and quantity of drugs seized Officer Bigda’s ations and Officer's Coumoyer’s non-action on the videotape with the three juveniles question th eredibilty and reliabibity of the [Narwote’s team, ‘Counsel asserts thatthe Internal Investigation Unt records for the officers referenced in paragraph 4 are material and relevant documents to challenge the officer's evedibalty. ‘Counsel is requesting the records ofthe entre narcotic’s team in this matter ‘upon information that there are numerous complains filed by citizens during the stop of motor vehicles, persons, and execution of warrants ‘An internal affsirs investigation isa formalized citizen complaint procedure, separate and independent from ordinary employment evaluation and assessment. Unlike other evaluations and assessments, the infernal affairs process exists specifically to addtess complaints of police corruption (theft, bribery, ‘acceptance of gratuites), misconduct (verbal and physical abuse, unlawful ‘nest, harassment), and other criminal sets that would undermine the relationship of trust and confidence between the police and the citizenry that is essential to law enforcement. ‘Counsel requests this Honorable Court to issue an order authorizing the production ofthe internal investigation records of Michael Goggins, Mark ‘Templeman Luke Coumoyer, Edward Kalish, C. Del La Cruz, Juan Rodriguez, Greg Bigda, Lt, Steven Kent, 1. Alberto Ayala, Daniel Brunton and Robert Brano, ‘Adaltionally Counsel requests this Honorable Court to authorize the payment forthe expense of producing said records through the Indigent Court Cost Act. G.L.c.261, §§27A-G, of pexjury. lO MAG Dae ‘Tracy E, Duncan’