BOSTON — The defense called three expert witnesses to the stand as the fifth week of Matthew Farwell’s federal murder trial got underway.
Farwell, a former Stoughton police detective, is accused of killing 23-year-old Sandra Birchmore and staging her death as a suicide.
His defense team used Monday’s expert testimony to argue that suicide remains a possible cause of death, an issue that could be critical as jurors eventually begin deliberations.
Legal analyst Elyse Hershon explained why the defense does not necessarily have to prove that Birchmore died by suicide. Instead, the defense could benefit if jurors believe suicide remains a reasonable possibility.
“In any criminal case the prosecution has to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is another possibility, it doesn’t have to be an equally balanced explanation, or an alternate possibility, or 50/50, but another possibility, in this case suicide, the jury will be instructed that that could be reasonable doubt and the prosecution did not prove its case. So, if suicide is still on the table and a viable theory and supported by evidence that’s come in, that could be a problem for the prosecution to get to a conviction,” Hershon said.
The defense’s first witness was Dr. William “Bill” Ralston, the chief medical examiner in Kentucky, who was referred to as a fact witness.
Ralston testified about his professional relationship and history with prosecution forensic expert Dr. William Smock. Smock previously testified that Birchmore’s death was a homicide, not a suicide.
The defense used Ralston’s testimony to challenge Smock’s forensic capabilities, with Ralston describing Smock as more of an “autopsy tech.”
Next, the defense called Dr. Heather Galvin, a forensic anthropology expert. Galvin testified that Birchmore’s injuries could have resulted from a seated suicide and discussed the amount of weight that would be needed to cause such a fracture.
But under cross-examination by prosecutors, Galvin also testified that there was no clear way to determine one scenario over the other.
The third witness was Dr. Alicia McCarthy, a forensic expert from Maine. McCarthy testified that she was asked to review some of Smock’s findings and said some of the autopsy photographs appeared distorted or were taken incorrectly.
Ultimately, McCarthy said her findings were inconclusive. She could not determine whether a mark on Birchmore came from the clasp or buckle on the strap found at the scene.
Although the defense has not yet rested its case, the judge, prosecutors and defense attorneys took part in a charge conference after the jury was dismissed.
The conference focused on the instructions jurors will receive before deliberations, including how they should consider testimony about Birchmore’s state of mind and whether she died by suicide.
Hershon said the wording of those instructions can be an important part of a criminal trial.
“A charge conference is a discussion about what jury instructions are going to be given to the jury, and this is such a critical part of any criminal trial. Any mistake, any word that’s inserted or removed inadvertently or intentionally, could disrupt or could overturn the whole conviction if there is one down the road. It’s a very important piece, and both sides usually want to add an instruction that may help the jury see their case more clearly. There is a set of instructions the judge is going to give that relates to the charges that Matthew Farwell faces, and those are the marching orders for the jurors and how to take the evidence they’ve received and put it into their deliberation process and reach a verdict.”
The jury is expected to hear from two more defense experts Tuesday.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW