Opinion ID: 6348938
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Watkins's Arrest

Text: Watkins was identified as a suspect early on in the police investigation into the shooting. Yet police were unable to locate Watkins for more than three months after the shooting. Many of Watkins's friends and acquaintances testified at trial that they likewise did not see him after April 26, 2003. Law enforcement officers testified that the Lincoln Mark VIII was found unattended in May 2003, and had been wiped clean of all fingerprints. The trial testimony concerning Watkins's eventual arrest is as follows. On August 5, 2003, Officer Michael Smith and other law enforcement officers observed a male matching the description of Kyle Watkins walk out of the area of 19 Lafayette Park in Lynn, Massachusetts. The officers approached the male, identified themselves as police officers, and asked him for his name. The male responded that his name was Leland Brooks and produced a Texas driver's license in that name. The officers then asked the male for his date of birth, but the male could not remember the date. After further questioning, the man admitted he actually was Kyle Watkins. Watkins was placed under arrest at that time and taken to the Lynn Police Station. - 12 - Officer Leonard Baillargeon met Watkins at the police station. The officer, who knew Watkins, testified that Watkins was unshaven. He was sweating. He was wearing a white tee shirt . . . that was soiled. He was wearing a pair of baggy blue jeans and white high top sneakers. Officer Baillargeon testified that [h]e appeared to . . . have lost a lot of weight. The officer made a comment to Watkins about his weight loss, to which Watkins responded he was down to 180 pounds. He had lost weight because he was under a lot of stress. When Officer Baillargeon transported Watkins back to New Bedford, Watkins remarked he was enjoying the ride because it was going to be the last ride he was going to have for a long time. Defense counsel cross-examined Officer Baillargeon on only one issue: Watkins's weight. The officer testified that Watkins previously weighed [b]etween 200 and 220, maybe 225, the same weight estimated by the Soares sisters of the shooter on the night of the murder. iv. The Testimony of Vern Rudolph for the Prosecution Vern Rudolph was the Commonwealth's primary identification witness, although he was by no means the only prosecution witness against Watkins, and the other witnesses corroborated key parts of Rudolph's testimony. Before discussing the shooting, the prosecution first questioned Rudolph about his arrest on December 3, 2003 for selling cocaine in a school zone - 13 - and unlawfully possessing a firearm, his guilty plea and threeyear prison sentence, and the benefit the prosecutor promised Rudolph in exchange for his testimony. Rudolph testified that he understood the prosecutor to promise in a letter that Rudolph would not have to serve the second half of his three-year sentence because he was testifying against Watkins. The letter, which was disclosed to defense counsel prior to trial and admitted by the prosecution as an exhibit, stated: Mr. Rudolph has been incarcerated since his arrest [on December 3, 2003]. On or about July 30, 2004 Mr. Rudolph pled guilty to offenses in the District Court [including count 6, distribution of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school] and received sentences to the house of correction totaling three years and one day . . . . As of June 2, 2005 Mr. Rudolph will have served 18 months of his sentence. I understand that you will file a motion for a new trial and to dismiss count 6 and a motion to re-sentence Mr. Rudolph . . . [and] that the remaining un-served portion of this sentence be suspended and he be placed on probation for three years with appropriate court imposed conditions of probation. The net effect of these motions, should they be allowed, will be to release Mr. Rudolph from further incarceration and place him under probation supervision for three years. Rudolph then testified to what he saw on the evening of April 26. Rudolph stated, inter alia, that he was at the Elks Lodge at around 8:30 p.m. that evening and he saw Watkins there - 14 - wearing a black hoodie and black jeans,8 and acting tough. Rudolph told the jury that after Watkins had said to him that [t]hings are going to change, Rudolph responded, I don't have [a] disagreement with you. You have an agreement or disagreement with Paul, take that up with him. Rudolph testified he did not see Watkins at the Elks Lodge after that and did not know when Watkins left, but stated he himself left the club sometime around 9:30 p.m. to pick up his daughter. Rudolph testified that he was driving down Mill Street in his white Nissan Maxima when he saw the Lincoln Mark VIII parked on the side of the road by Cedar Street. Rudolph stated that he slowly began to swerve around the Lincoln towards the intersection when he saw Kyle Watkins shooting at a Honda Accord. Rudolph then turned down Cedar Street and sped away. He admitted that [i]t was a foggy night. It wasn't too bad. It was, you know -- it wasn't a good night. That's for sure. Rudolph testified that, thereafter, he told his mother what he had witnessed,9 and he spoke with police about the shooting 8 Rudolph later testified he was not aware of the description that [the Soares sisters and Couture] had given of the person who fired the shots at the time [he] went to the police station. 9 Just before Rudolph testified, the jury heard the testimony of his mother, Patricia Rose. She testified that at around 10:00 p.m. on April 26, Rudolph knocked on her door, walked into her house, and stated that on the way to the mall to pick up his daughter, . . . he witnessed someone getting shot and he saw who did it. Thereafter, Rose drove to the location identified by - 15 - on April 30, 2003, testified before the grand jury on September 9, 2003, and testified at a deposition later in September 2003. His trial testimony was consistent with those prior statements and testimony. v. Defense Strategy and Cross-Examination of Rudolph Watkins's primary defense strategy at trial was to attack the veracity of Rudolph's testimony, impeach Rudolph's credibility, and ultimately try to discredit Rudolph's identification of Watkins as the shooter. Indeed, defense counsel had highlighted during his closing argument that Rudolph had incentives to lie -- Rudolph and his brother initially were suspected of Coombs's murder and Rudolph was promised in exchange for his testimony an agreement to get out of jail for an unrelated offense. Defense counsel implied that Rudolph did in fact lie. Defense counsel questioned Rudolph's timeline, the visibility that night, and the location Rudolph placed the Honda at the time of the shooting, i.e., near the intersection of Cedar and Mill Streets rather than on Mill Street eighty-or-so feet west of Cedar, which is where the memorial is and where the other witnesses and physical evidence placed the Honda.10 Rudolph as the scene of the shooting and saw [t]hey were still working on the body. Rose was not cross-examined. 10 Trial counsel also was aware of and chose not to introduce on cross-examination Rudolph's various pre-trial - 16 - Defense counsel engaged in an extensive cross- examination of Rudolph which covers more than twenty pages of the trial transcript. Defense counsel had the following exchanges with Rudolph, among others, in front of the jury: Q: The first shot that goes off, is that simultaneous with the person you identify as Kyle Watkins and they happen to go off? A: Just about, yes. Q: Could you agree with me, all of what you saw in terms of the shooting and the person simultaneously firing the shots occurred in a matter of two or three seconds? A: Fair to say, yes. . . . . Q: And April 26th, at least until April 30th, you hadn't told anybody that the person you saw shooting was Kyle Watkins; is that fair to say? A: Yes. . . . . Q: And the police -- you actually make a call to the police station [on April 30, 2003]? A: Yeah. Q: And that's because you had heard that they may be looking for your brother? recantations of his identification of Watkins to Watkins's family and private investigator, discussed infra. The motion for new trial judge found that trial counsel had made a reasonable tactical decision in order to prevent the Commonwealth from introducing evidence of . . . threats to Rudolph, which were made by Watkins's family after Rudolph began cooperating. It is settled law in this case that these strategic tactical decisions by trial counsel did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. - 17 - A: Yes. Q: And your brother is what, a suspect in this case? A: Yes. Q: When you get this call, you don't identify yourself. This is April 30th, right? A: I believe so. . . . . Q: When you make the call, it's because you hear that the police may be looking for your brother because he's a suspect in this shooting of Paul Coombs[?] . . . A: Yes. Q: So when you make this call, you don't identify yourself. The conversation goes back and forth; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And at some point in time your name comes up as a result of the conversation that you're having. It's by police personnel, as a result of making that call, right? A: Yes. . . . . Q: And it's at that point in time you then identify yourself? A: Only after they say my name. Q: That's when you identify yourself? A: Yes. . . . . Q: And [you go to the police station for an interview and] at some point, the police say to you, Well, if it's not you and it's not - 18 - your brother, then it must be Kyle Watkins, isn't that right? . . . . A: Somewhat, yeah. Q: And words to the effect that if you don't tell us that it's Kyle Watkins, you're going to remain -- you and your brother are going to remain the main suspects in this case. That come up? A: Yeah. Defense counsel also questioned Rudolph about what counsel characterized as inconsistencies in Rudolph's testimony. He cross-examined Rudolph about the time he left the Elks Lodge, as the shooting took place at around 9:50 p.m., just one block from the club. Defense counsel implied that it would take minutes, not a third of an hour, for Rudolph to drive from the Elks Lodge to where the shooting took place. Defense counsel asked Rudolph about where he placed the shooting, and how far from it he placed himself. Rudolph stated he was on Mill Street, just east of the intersection of Cedar and Mill Streets, and the shooting took place by the Honda which was just a few feet west of the intersection. Rudolph explained that, at the time of the shooting, the Honda was not as far down Mill Street as where the memorial is now. Defense counsel observed that Rudolph's account would lessen the distance of [Rudolph's] view from where [he was] . . . as opposed to the Honda being up near where the memorial is. Officer Safioleas and Michael Couture - 19 - had testified that the memorial is located where the Honda was on April 26.11 Defense counsel then briefly cross-examined Rudolph about his deal with the Commonwealth, asking, so now we're at the period that you're testifying here and the district attorney has made an agreement to let you out of jail; is that right? . . . For your testimony? Rudolph responded in the affirmative. The court later instructed in its charge that the jury may take into consideration the Commonwealth's agreement regarding a sentence currently being served by a witness in assessing his credibility. The testimony of such a witness should be scrutinized with particular care. 11Defense counsel highlighted other inconsistencies in Rudolph's testimony, including which hand Watkins fired his gun with: Q: What hand [did Watkins fire with]? A: Right hand. Q: Last time you talked to somebody, you told them it was the left hand, when you spoke to the police. Remember that? Or you don't remember that either? . . . . Q: You never told anybody that shooter was holding the gun with two hands; is that right? You never told anybody that? A: No. Couture had testified that the shooter was using two hands. - 20 - After considering all of this evidence, the jury found Watkins guilty of murder. Watkins argues the outcome could have been different had the Commonwealth produced additional evidence to impeach Rudolph, particularly the finger-shot report.