Choice of Words

One of the more remarkable things about Search & Seizure law is its’ inherent kinetics. The law constantly adapts and shifts and molds itself to the new facts of each case. More often than not, the author finds the application of the facts to centuries’ old law a fascinating study.

One of the areas of application which barely left the proverbial incubator is the search of computers and auxiliary components. While the law is still being determined, a select number of state and federal courts have grappled with this issue. One of the more recent developments in this saga was the case Commonwealth v. Michael McDermott, 448 Mass. 750 (2009).

Mr. McDermott murdered seven people in cold blood, in an office park in Wakefield, Massachusetts the day after Christmas back in 2000. The defense constructed an elaborate insanity defense, which the jury ultimately didn’t believe, resulting in his life incarceration.

However, what I found peculiar about this case was the explanation of the word “paranoia”. The defense brought experts to testify as to the defendant’s state of mind. While one expert, a Dr. Rogers, endeavored to define “paranoia” she used a sensitive series of words: “September 11th”.

Dr. Rogers testified: “Paranoia is the perception that other people might mean to do you harm… I mean, just to explain it in general terms, after the September 11th attack in this country I think most of us felt a little paranoid, and we might have used that word, in the sense that we expected something bad or adverse to – .”

Seemingly unable to control his own witness, the defense counsel moved for a mis-trial, on the grounds that in a case involving multiple homicides, “the prejudice from such evidence was ‘considerable’ and violated due process.”

The judge rejected this contention, stating “it is difficult to imagine that the jury could have been unduly influenced, by the witness’ spontaneous remark.”, citing Commonwealth v. Martino, 412 Mass, at 282.

Evidently, even on direct examination, certain words carry with them an implicit meaning which can be construed as prejudicial.

It appears, the wound from that day has yet to completely codify.