The Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office has notified defendants in 142 cases about the investigation into State Police Sgt. Scott Quigley.
Quigley, who was once embedded in the office as a homicide investigator, was indicted last month on a motor vehicle homicide charge. He’s accused of drunkenly crashing his cruiser into a wheelchair van in Woburn in 2024, leading to the death of Special Olympian Angelo Schettino.
William Dolan, who represents Channa Phan on a murder case Quigley investigated, argued in court Tuesday that he wants the records he’s received about the officer to be public. Currently, the information is sealed by the court under a protective order.
Dolan called the order, which also include the same information on Quigley sent to lawyers in 142 other cases, “a very dangerous precedent.”
“I don’t think that’s fair,” Dolan said in light of the fact that certain information that is protected by the order has been alluded to by the judge in the Phan case and by Middlesex in a report they published on their handling of the Quigley case.
The judge in the Phan case, Judge Christopher Barry-Smith on Tuesday referenced criminal investigations into other state police officers who were involved in the handling of Quigley’s crash.
Catching himself, Barry-Smith said he thought he’d read that information in the news, then backtracked, saying it had been in some discovery that’s protected.
“I should be careful,” he added.
There was no mention in court of who the officers are.
“We have charged Quigley, and the related incident remains under investigation,” a Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office spokesperson told the Herald. Quigley is being prosecuted by the office because of the conflict of interest with Middlesex. “We’re not commenting further at this point.”
The Commonwealth argued that protective orders like this are common, but did ask the judge for clarification on what was under the order, what was impounded, and what could was public.
The allegations against Quigley first came into public view during the first-degree murder trial of brothers Channa, Billoeum, Billy Phan, who are accused of killing Tyrone Phet in Lowell in 2020. The Middlesex DA’s office disclosed the allegations to the Phan’s defense attorneys in the middle of jury empanelment in February.
The DA’s office found out about Quigley’s alleged blood alcohol at the time of the crash via a wrongful death suit filed by Schettino’s family.
The disclosure paused the trial to allow for the Suffolk criminal investigation, the Middlesex independent review, and both outside and internal investigations at the State Police to take place.
On Tuesday, Barry-Smith asked the defense whether they’d like to schedule a trial date, as more information has come out, including Quigley’s indictment and the Middlesex report, but the attorneys said they’d rather wait.
Billy Phan’s lawyer Mark Wester noted outstanding discovery from Suffolk from Quigley’s grand jury indictment, and Dolan said that he’d likely file some motions to suppress or at least reconsider evidence because of the alleged misconduct by Quigley.
Also on the table were motions to compel discovery from Teresa’s Ristorante, where Quigley was allegedly drinking before the fatal crash, and to dismiss the case all together.
Judge Barry-Smith seemed disinclined to order information from Teresa’s, warning that presenting receipts or other material from that order could cause a “trial within a trial.” He also noted that the information was already in the Middlesex report and would come from discovery in the Suffolk case.
Lorenzo Perez, representing Billoeum Phan, called the material in the report “filtered,” and said, “We can trust the government… but we here don’t,” pointing to the defense attorneys.
“We want to check them,” he added.
The judge allowed Perez to file a supplement to his previous motions on the issue, asking him to cite some case law.
On the motion for dismissal based on prosecutorial misconduct, Dolan said he’d like to wait for the judge to make a decision until all the discovery is in.
Barry-Smith asked whether the fact that there has been a continuance in the trial to allow for further investigation was enough remedy.
“It’s exceedingly rare to dismiss a case,” like this, he said.
The prosecution, for its part, said that the case should not be dismissed.
The parties will be back in court on June 2 for a status conference, but could be back sooner to discuss issues of discovery.
Comments