Massachusetts Witch Trial: Cheryl Amirault LeFave to Return to Jail

By Christopher M. Newton

"I'm still trying to process the injustice. I can't" -- Cheryl Amirault
LeFave

On September 15th Cheryl Amirault LeFave will return to jail for a
crime she did not commit. On the 18th of August the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) overthrew Superior Court Judge Isaac Borenstein's 1998 ruling which ordered a new trial for LeFave.

In 1984 Gerald Amirault, Cheryl's brother, changed the diapers of a
four-year-old student at the Fells Acres Day School in Middlesex,
Massachusetts, where he, Cheryl, and their mother, Violet, worked.
The child was sent home with new clothes and a bag containing the
soiled garments. Five months later the child's mother accused Gerald of sexually molesting her child.

This initial accusation led to a wave of hysteria. Parents, social
workers, police, and psychiatrists repeatedly interrogated the Fells Acres students in a state of panic. Suggestive interviewing tactics led to more, increasingly fantastic, accusations. On January 23, 1985, Gerald,Cheryl and Violet were indicted by the Grand Jury on 18 counts of abusing 8 (later 10) children. Gerald Amirault was found guilty in 1986. Cheryl and Violet were found guilty in a separate trial in 1987.

Cheryl has served over 8 years of an 8 to 20 year sentence. She
would be eligible for parole if she admitted guilt, but she maintains her
innocence.

In 1995 Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Robert A. Barton overthrew Cheryl and Violet's convictions on the grounds that the Amiraults had been denied their Sixth Amendment right to confront their accusers. In the 1987 trial, the children who testified were seated so they faced away from the accused. The SJC overturned Barton's decision in 1997. Judge Barton publicly recused himself from the case after the SJC's ruling, stating that the Amiraults "did not receive a fair trial and justice was not done."

In 1998 Judge Borenstein ordered a retrial on the basis of new scientific evidence that shows that suggestive interviewing techniques can and will corrupt the testimony of children.

Judge Borenstein:

"In today's decision this Court does not suggest that the serious
errors committed in the investigation of this defendant were intentionally done in bad faith. Rather, overzealous and inadequately trained investigators, perhaps unaware of the great dangers of using improper interviewing and investigating techniques, questioned these children in a climate of panic if not hysteria, creating a highly prejudicial and irreparable set of mistakes.

"These grave errors led to the testimony of the children being forever
tainted. The only allegations made by child witnesses occurred after
they were subjected to the admittedly suggestive interviews and
investigative techniques as well as inappropriate, even if understandable, influence by their families. Moreover, neither behavioral symptoms or physical evidence which may be consistent with child sexual abuse were revealed until after the children and their families were subjected to these improper interviewing and investigative techniques.

"These alleged symptoms were only discussed after the families were
overwhelmed by the panic, hysteria and media attention that snowballed this case into national headlines and widespread concern about ritualistic sexual abuse of children."

Judge Borenstein concluded: "This Court is left with an abiding
conviction that justice was not done."

Although Borenstein did not accuse investigators of bad faith we may
come to another conclusion if we examine the evidence. Susan Kelley, a pediatric nurse, questioned children with a carrot and stick method. She used Bert and Ernie dolls to cajole the children into making accusations and anatomically correct dolls to demonstrate the difference between a "good touch" and a "bad touch." Her behavior rewarded accusations and discouraged denials. If the child denied any abuse she proceeded as if he or she had given an incorrect answer and then re-asked the question until he or she got the "right" answer.

Children alleged that they had been abused by a "bad clown" in a
"secret room" or a "magic room." There is talk of abuse at the hands of robots, elephants, and lobsters. One child claims to have been molested in a hot air balloon. Another reports that he was tied naked to a tree in front of the school while Cheryl mutilated a squirrel. Although no teacher or teacher's aide at the Fells Acres Day School testified to noticing any signs of abuse, the children's outlandish testimony landed Gerald, Violet and Cheryl Amirault in jail.

Dr. Maggie Bruck, and her colleague, Stephen J. Ceci, published Suggestibility of the Child Witness: A Historical Review and
Synthesis, in 1993 and Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children's Testimony in 1995. In 1998,Bruck, an experimental psychologist, testified that the interviewing methods used by Susan Kelley and others were highly suggestive and that the children's testimony was "unreliable" and "highly, highly suspect." Judge Borenstein ordered a new trial for the Amiraults based on the research of Bruck and her colleagues. Borenstein ruled that the children would not be allowed to testify at the new  trial because "they have been subjected to very serious and repeated impermissible interviewing and
investigative techniques and no independent evidence exists to support their claims. Thus their testimony has been forever rendered unreliable."

On August 18th the SJC, in a unanimous ruling, overturned Judge
Borenstein's decision. The Court ruled:

"Undoubtedly recent research has broadened the scientific community's understanding of the effects of suggestive questioning. We are faced, however, with the conflict between the constantly evolving nature of science and the doctrine of finality . . . to hold otherwise would provide convicted defendants with a new trial whenever they could find a credible expert with new research results supporting claims that the defendant made or could have made at trial."

In the face of overwhelming evidence that the Amiraults were convicted on the basis of false testimony the SJC chose to stand by its past decisions rather than admit it may have made a mistake. The implications are mind-boggling. Newly discovered evidence is irrelevant no matter how irrefutably it proves a convict's innocence. Apparently the interests of judicial "finality" override the rights of the innocent and an entire nation's right to know the complete truth of a case.

We are faced with the conclusion that the SJC and the prosecutors
involved in this case are trying to save face. Many prosecutors have used the Amirault case as an opportunity to advance their careers. Scott Harshbarger, the original prosecutor, has gone on to become the Massachusetts Attorney General. He narrowly lost a bid for Governor in 1998. Rather than admit he may have railroaded the Amiraults he absolves himself of guilt by putting the responsibility on the jury. Harshbarger maintains that the Amiraults were convicted by "two juries of responsible Massachusetts citizens."

Larry Hardoon, a former prosecutor in the Amirault case, has gone on to specialize in child molestation cases. Hardoon has said to the Boston Globe that society should be "willing to trade off a couple of situations that are really unfair, in exchange for being sure that hundreds of children are protected." Harshbarger makes a similar argument: To support the Amiraults is to "absolutely negate that child abuse occurs." This "save the children" stance is driven solely by politics. It is intended to make Harshbarger and his cohorts look like defenders of the good when in reality they are continuing to press the hysteria button to hide their mistakes. The fact remains -- they have put innocent people in prison to further their careers.

After the SJC's ruling, Judge Borenstein ordered both the defense and
the prosecution to appear in his court on August 30th. It was thought that Borenstein intended to publicly recuse himself from the case in the
same way Judge Barton did. Rather than face further embarrassment, the SJC blocked this order.

It was revealed on Wednesday, September 1st, that Judge Borenstein
had actually intended to persuade current Middlesex District Attorney,
Martha Coakley, to reduce LeFave's sentence to time served. As it stands Cheryl Amirault LeFave can either apply for clemency from Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci, or seek parole, which she has been repeatedly denied, no doubt because she refuses to admit guilt for what she did not do.

On September 1st also, LeFave's lawyers, filed a motion for
reconsideration by the SJC, acknowledging that it's a "longshot." Of the request for a commutation of sentence or pardon, Governor Cellucci not only said he would consider that request, but give it "careful consideration." Although James Sultan, LeFave's attorney, has not yet decided if an application for commutation or pardon would be submitted, he was glad to hear of the governor's willingness to consider it.

The new motion may delay LeFave's fate, although as of now Cheryl Amirault LeFave will return to MCI Framingham on September
15. Gerald Amirault has remained in prison since his conviction in
1986. Violet Amirault passed away in 1997.

© Justice Denied