COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT

HAMPSHIRE, SS. DOCKET NO.:
10-48

COMMONWEALTH

V.

AUSTIN RENAUD

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO COMMONWEALTH’S

SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

In response to the government’s supplemental opposition the defendant, through his

counsel, responds that the government has made a mistake and is unwilling to admit the error.
It is now clear, the government failed to provide to the Grand Jury accurate and concise
information as to the age of Ms. Prince at the time of the crime charged. The government now
argues that the members of the Grand Jury were allowed to speculate and guess from the
evidence provided that Ms. Prince was under the age of sixteen at the time of the alleged acts.
Ms. Prince’s age is an element of the crime and needed to be presented, clearly and correctly,
to the members of the Grand Jury. A review of the Grand Jury minutes and the exhibits has left
this Honorable Court and the counsel for the defendant without any basis or reasonable
inferences on which to determine the age of Ms. Prince at the time of the charged crime as
required.
The government is really stretching the envelope of common sense and understanding
to make the arguments encompassed in their opposition. It is not to be left to the Grand Jury to
guess at the age of Ms. Prince at the time of the crime charged. The information was readily
available to the government and not presented despite the extensive volume of the Grand Jury
Minutes in this lengthy investigation. The government could have, and should have, presented
the information as to her date of birth to the Grand Jury and failed to do so.
The missing element is fatal to the current indictment. This is simple and basic
information that must be presented to Grand Juries throughout the Commonwealth in cases like
this on a daily basis. This missing evidence is information which is critical to sustaining the
indictment which has been returned by the Grand Jury. This is not a time for the Grand Jury to
 make guesses, to make un-supported inferences or draw inaccurate conclusions based on
absent evidence that could have been easily provided. The citizens of the Commonwealth
expect and need the Grand Jury process to protect them from erroneous or incomplete
accusations by the government.
In their opposition the government argues the correct use of the parenthesis, what it
means and how it applies to the English language is of assistance in the Grand Jury minutes
and deliberations in this case. The Macmillian Handbook of English is hardly a book that the
government can argue and assume has been reviewed by any of the members of the Grand
Jury that returned this indictment. The argument is specious and does not change the fact that
the government, and they alone, failed to provide the Grand Jury with the date of birth of Ms.
Prince.
The evidence in the Grand Jury minutes is insufficient to establish the age of Ms. Prince
at the time of the crime charged.
For these reasons and arguments, the Defendant respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court allow the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

THE DEFENDANT,
BY COUNSEL,

______________________________
Terrence M. Dunphy, Esquire
81 State Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01103
1-413-732-3550, FAX 1-413-732-3552
BBO# 138760
terrencedunphy@comcast.net
Date: February 25, 2011