Odgren defense fee under wraps
Other records to be released
The money spent to hire experts to testify in the failed defense of teen killer John Odgren will remain locked up after both the defense and prosecution argued the bills should never be made public.
Both sides made their case yesterday before Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Ralph Gants, who took the matter of taxpayerfunded expenditures under advisement.
Norfolk County Assistant District Attorney Marguerite Grant and defense attorney Patricia Garin agreed that the motion for funds used in Odgren’s 2010 trial should not be released.
That information, along with other case documents, is impounded. Funds were granted to Odgren, who was convicted of fatally stabbing his classmate James Alenson, 15, at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School in 2007, to hire investigators and psychiatrists in a failed effort to plead insanity. Odgren, who has Asperger’s Syndrome, is serving a life sentence without possibility of parole. He was 16 at the time of the murder.
Grant first said she wanted to “see all of the case,” pointing to the possibility of future proceedings in the Odgren case. She added the district attorney’s office would be at a disadvantage if the records remained locked up.
The defense claimed that any money granted to Odgren, who could not afford the costs himself, were allocated for a purpose. “The reason is because of equal protection,” said Garin. “They’re just not disclosed to the public.”
Garin argued that there are no plans for future trials and that “there are a lot of maybes.”
She said lifting the impoundment on other case documents would not be a problem as they were already made public during Odgren’s trial.
“This is about not penalizing someone because of their poverty. It would never ever be an issue for a person who had money,” said Garin.
Attorney Harvey Silverglate, a civil liberties and constitutional law crusader, said seeing both parties agree is rare. But, he told the Herald, there’s a valid reason for it.
Silverglate said the defense wouldn’t want the motions for funds to be released as it “gives away the defense strategy and mental status of the defendant.”
He added the prosecution would also not want the motions for funds to be made public in fear of gaining renewed publicity and giving away too much information. Additionally, Silverglate said the prosecution would not want the public to start feeling sympathetic toward the defendant. “It’s kind of a complicated mess,” said Silverglate.
Gants said there was “no reason” to lift the impoundment. He did suggest a joint motion could be submitted.