Opinion ID: 1494221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Effect of Lyons' Testimony on the Credibility of Gerry's Testimony

Text: It is clear that the State regarded Gerry as a key witness and his credibility as crucial. In closing argument, the State said that the most important piece of evidence is Gerry's testimony. [62] The State also emphasized that Gerry solves the case and that [i]f it wasn't for Gerry and Dan Lyons, he [Capano] might have got away with it. [63] Capano refers to Gerry as a critical prosecution witness because the testimony that Capano had asked him whether his boat would be available if he ever should need it was the most important evidence in the case on the issue of premeditation. But the fact that Gerry was a critical witness whose credibility was pivotal is not the end of the harmless error analysis. One must place the unfortunate lie detector reference and vouching by Lyons in the context of all the evidence, particularly the other admissible evidence corroborating Gerry's testimony. As noted earlier, Gerry testified about several issues. Most important for our analysis, he testified concerning: (1) the extortion story described below and (2) the attempts to hide Fahey's death. It is crucial to examine the extent to which his testimony on these two issues was corroborated or undisputed. [64] We begin with the fact that most of the testimony regarding the immediate cover-up of Fahey's death, including the disposal of her body, is either undisputed or corroborated. [65] Capano admitted to dumping Fahey's body over the side of Gerry's boat. [66] The events of that morning are corroborated by eyewitness testimony and physical evidence, such as phone records and gas receipts. [67] The State emphasized in closing argument that when Gerry came forward with his story about the cooler, it was a story that he could not prove and might invite disbelief. But the cooler finally surfaced, having been found at sea by a fisherman. [68] Thus, Gerry's story was vindicated, and at trial the evidence of what had happened in disposing of the body was essentially undisputed. As the State argued, the cooler is the ultimate corroboration of Gerry Capano. [69] It appears to us that much of the importance ascribed to Gerry's testimony by the State is linked to this portion of his testimony, for the reason that only Gerry could give direct testimony concerning the disposal of Fahey's body in the State's case. Tom Capano in the defense case corroborated the essence of Gerry's testimony concerning the body disposal. This testimony does not, standing alone, show that Capano actually killed Fahey or how. But it does show a cover-up, and thus consciousness of guilt. The consciousness of guilt evidence was not contested at trial. Thus, we must focus on the main element of Gerry's testimony that was disputed: the evidence of planning and, more specifically, the alleged conversations about extortionists. According to Gerry, Thomas approached him in February 1996 and asked to borrow $8,000 in cash. [70] Gerry testified that Tom's explanation for this request was that a guy and a girl were extorting Tom, threatening to hurt his kids and ruin his career. [71] Gerry testified that he went to the bank, cashed a check, and gave Tom the money. [72] Gerry further related at trial that in a later conversation, Tom said that he was scared that the guy was going to beat him up or hurt him, and asked to borrow one of Gerry's guns. [73] Tom later returned the gun unused. [74] Finally, Gerry testified that Tom asked if he could use the boat if the extortionists hurt his kids and he was to do something to them. [75] The State used this testimony as evidence of planning. Capano disputes Gerry's testimony on these points. The State's theory was that Thomas was thinking ahead about using Gerry's boat to dispose of Fahey's body, and feeding Gerry a story about extortionists so that Gerry would think there was a legitimate reason for this use of the boat. [76] According to the State's theory, borrowing $8,000 in cash was a premeditated attempt to support the extortionist story because Capano had at least $125,000 in his checking account at all times in February 1996, and over $150,000 on the day he borrowed the money. [77] The State also argued that the jury could infer that Capano borrowed the gun at that time as a premeditated step toward carrying out the murder. [78] The State argued to the jury that Thomas later returned the gun to Gerry (and had MacIntyre purchase a different gun) because Thomas realized that this gun would be easily traceable to him if recovered after he used it to kill Fahey. [79] According to the State, all of this planning connected to the extortion smokescreen took place just when Fahey was beginning to truly distance herself from Capano, supplying a timely motive. The references to lie detector tests tended to bolster the credibility of the State's planning evidence that was centered on Gerry's testimony. Nevertheless, we find that there are significant factors in the context of the totality of the State's case militating against the likelihood that these improper references constituted such substantial prejudice to Capano that we should reverse the conviction and sentence. First, Gerry's testimony about the extortionist story is circumstantially corroborated. The fact that Thomas borrowed $8,000 from Gerry in early February 1996 is admitted by Thomas and established by bank records offered by the State and admitted into evidence. [80] Capano's own explanation for the transaction appears strained and its credibility was strongly contested at trial. [81] Second, as with the cash, it is undisputed that Thomas accepted a gun from Gerry. [82] The corroborating evidence mitigates the impact of the lie detector evidence on the credibility of Gerry's testimony. Gerry testified that after Tom told him about the extortionists, he went to his friend Jon Burris to ask whether he knew a leg breaker who could help his brother. [83] Jon Burris gave testimony corroborating Gerry on this point. [84] Another source of corroboration of Gerry's testimony is MacIntyre's testimony that Capano told her about extortionists as an explanation for why he wanted her to purchase a gun for him. [85] Additionally, MacIntyre's purchase of the gun for Capano corroborates Gerry's testimony because it leads to the inference that Capano was not a passive and reluctant recipient of Gerry's gun; rather, he was actively seeking a gun by May 1996. All of this corroboration greatly reduces the prejudicial impact of the references to the lie detector test. Of significant concern is Gerry's statement that my brother said to me that if somebody was to hurt my kids and I had to do something to them, could we use the boat. [86] Relatedly, this statement is the one most directly bolstered by both Gerry's and Lyons' references to the lie detector test. This is because according to both of these witnesses, it is the one statement that Gerry withheld from Lyons until he was threatened with a lie detector test. [87] Although the lie detector reference certainly risks enhancing the credibility of all of Gerry's testimony, this statement is the one that is directly and specifically bolstered. The State confirms this in closing argument, saying with reference to this statement: But [Gerry] told his story, his testimony, to Dan Lyons as early as April 1997, months before his house was raided. And the only piece of the puzzle he left out had to do with the defendant's request that if he killed somebody he could use the boat. That's the only piece missing. And we get that piece when on October 30th Dan Lyons, knowing that Gerry is about to come in and discuss his case with the Government, tells [Gerry] you must tell the complete truth. He threatens him with the lie detector test and he says you have to tell the complete truth, you cannot hold back. [88] Thus, we must weigh the impact of this statement, in light of the rest of the State's evidence, mindful of the credence that the jury may have accorded it. But, in the context of this ten-week trial, this statement was harmless when measured against the strength of the total evidence against Capano, despite the State's reliance on it. Moreover, we discuss in subsection C-3 the trial court's instruction carefully limiting the purpose for which the lie detector references were admitted.