In addition to many discrepancies with the victim's testimony and sloppy work by the police in their investigation, there were also numerous mistakes made by Hank's trial lawyer that contributed significantly to Hank's conviction:
- (1) Why didn't trial attorney Murray Shulman request Hank's trial be scheduled for a later date? Hank did not see or speak to his trial attorney Shulman until the day his trial started. Shulman introduced himself to Hank in the Superior Court lock up as his attorney the day jury selection began. Shulman spent all of 45 minutes with Hank before they were called into the court room; hardly enough time to get to know Hank, his case or build an adequate defense. What Shulman defended Hank with was just what the Asst. D.A. Frances W. Bloom gave him to defend Hank. In essence Hank had no real trial attorney defending him; it was more like two prosecutors trying the case. If attorney Shulman had presented a proper defense on Hank's behalf, how might that have altered the jury's decision?
- (2) Why wasn't’ Kenny Newman (Hnak's brother's friend) called as a witness by the defense to verify Hank arrived at his brother's house around 2:00 AM the morning of July 19th? Newman was at the house with Teddy Brooks (Hank's brother) and could have supported Hank’s alibi. Newman didn't testify because he would have been an independent witness who had nothing to gain by testifying for or against Hank. D.A Bloom didn't want that and Attorney Shulman went along with it thus removing a witness that could have provided Hank with an alibi during the time the supposed crime was occurring. If the jury had heard Kenny Newman testimony, how might that have altered their decision?
- (3) Why wasn’t the chemist who analyzed the quilt used at the crime scene called as a witness by the defense? He might have been able to provide answers to key questions regarding the fluid and semen (and blood) found on the quilt, alleged by Tanya, where the rape occurred; answers that might have shown none of the fluid found on the quilt was Hank’s or Tanya’s. When Det. Whitehead presented the chemist report, Attorney Shulman asked the judge if he would hab the chemist into court so that he (Shulman) could question him about his report. The judge denied Shulman's request; stating Shulman had plenty of time to subpoena the chemist into court. remember Shulman had no time prior to the trial to question the chemist to determine what information he had that might have proven valuable to Hank's defense. A rape kit was done on Tanya (victim) and based on what Shulman told Hank the test was negative. A blood test was also taken of Tanya and all those results were also negative. Remember Tanya claimed Hank made her drink two 16 oz. bottles of beer, 32 oz. total just a few hours before the blood test was taken. 32 oz. of beer for a 12 year old girl is a lot of beer, yet it didn't show up in her bloodstream. And no one stated that she appeared drunk, or smelled beer on her. Yet the results of the rape kit and blood test were never presented to the jury; imagine how that might have altered their decision? And this was allegedly a rape case and nothing presented to substantiate the fact a rape was committed.
.
- (4) Why wasn’t Mary Mahaney better prepared as a witness by defense counsel when she testified? Why didn’t defense counsel ensure she had her diary present so she could have been positive of the date she saw Hank talking with two girls that could have been Tanya and Michelle? Why didn’t defense counsel make arrangements to have Mary Mahaney view Tanya and Michelle (Tina's friend) and be able to say that they were definitely the two girls talking to Hank on Wednesday, July 21st, two days after the alleged rape occurred? Attorney Shulman didn't speak to Mary Mahaney until late that morning just before putting her on the stand, hardly enough time to prepare her for what was to come. Shulman asked the judge if Mahaney could go home to get her diary, and bring it back to court so she would have something to reference; the judge denied Shulman's request telling him he had plenty of time to prepare his case; yeah like meeting with Hank for 45 minutes just before going to trial. Shulman knew nothing about Mary Mahaney's testimony or what she had until she got on the stand. Tanya's (victim) next door neighbor, Mr. Frappier would have corroborated Mahaney's testimony/diary, if he had been habed (brought) in to testify that he saw Hank the morning of Wednesday, July 21, 1982. If the jury had heard a prepared Mary Maheney's testimony, how might that have altered their decision?
- (5) Why didn’t defense counsel try to locate the McDonald’s waitress that Hank said waited on Tanya and him the morning of July 19th when they had breakfast? She could have described Tanya’s appearance and her behavior at this time. Hank states when Tanya and he walked into McDonald's the morning of July 19, 1982, she was standing in front of Hank, in the back of other people, with other people on their right and left in line. If Tanya was as dirty as Attorney Jeffrey Weisser stated she was, not only would the waitress have noticed it, but other customers would have as well; as well as the stench of beer and urine all over Hank. If Attorney Shulman had located the waitress at McDonald's and gotten her to testify, how might this have altered the jury's decision?
- (6) Why weren’t the policemen who were at the convenience store Hank went in to purchase cigarettes, called by defense counsel, to confirm they saw Hank at the store and that it appeared Hank wasn’t bothered by anything; the policemen also could have described Hank’s appearance that morning (the morning after the alleged rape)? The police log books would have shown the police were in the store when Hank said they were. Police are trained to observe strange behavior and foul smell. Even if Hank hadn't appeared nervous how would he have escaped the police officers noticing a foul urine and beer smell if Hank, according to Tanya's testimony, been drinking beer all night and urinating on himself? Also, Tanya stated that she vomited on Hank more then once; how would that have smelled to a couple of police officers? If what Tanya stated was true and Hank walked into that store in the condition she claimed he did, Hank would have been questioned and in all probability arrested and put in a squad car and taken to jail. If these two police officers had testified that they noticed no strange behavior in Hank or foul smell on his appearance, how might that have altered the decision of the jury?
- (7) Why wasn’t the police officer who responded to the break-in at Michelle Bushey's house called by defense counsel as a witness? He could have stated if Hank talked with him as opposed to remaining in the car, acting strange as Tanya testified. The police officer would have shown the discrepancy in both Tanya and Michelle's testimony. His written report would have shown them both wrong. If this police officer had testified, showing the discrepancy in both Tanya and Michelle's testimony, how might that have altered the decision of the jury?
- (8) Why wasn’t Teddy Brooks (Hank's brother) better prepared by defense counsel as a witness? He could have been a powerful witness, along with Kenny Newman (who was never called to testify) in providing a credible alibi to Hank's whereabouts the morning of July 19th when Tanya stated the alleged rape occurred; instead Teddy Brooks' testimony was pretty weak. Attorney Shulman never talked to Hank's brother, or knew him or saw him until he got on the stand. In fact, Shulman had to ask the judge to issue a warrant for Teddy Brooks, and sent court officers out to look for him. This made Hank look bad as it appeared teddy Brooks didn't want to testify on Hank's behalf. If Teddy Brooks had been properly prepared by Attorney Shulman, how might that have altered the jury's decision?
- (9) Why wasn’t Jeffery Weisser’s landlord called by defense counsel as a witness to validate Weisser’s testimony concerning Tanya’s behavior and physical appearance on the morning of July 19th? Could he have disputed Weisser's testimony? Why would a criminal attorney like Weisser allow a crime victim in such a heinous crime, at such a young age, wash away alleged evidence? If the landlord had been called and disputed Weisser's testimony, how might that have altered the jury's decision?
- (10) Why didn’t defense counsel prepare Hank to admit he was an alcoholic and had spent time at a treatment center for alcoholics when he (defense counsel) must have known a witness would be called by the prosecution who would testify Hank spent nearly three months at a treatment center? This really damaged Hank’s credibility in front of the jury. Remember Hank did not see or speak to Attorney Shulman until 45 minutes before his trial started, and for one hour on a Saturday afternoon at the County jail while Shulman was seeing several other clients, and this subject of alcoholism was never discussed. If Attorney Shulman had taken the time to learn about Hank's past regarding alcohol he might have better prepared Hank to testify in a credible manner. How did this lack of preparation by Attorney Shulman effect the decision of the jury?
- (11) Why didn’t defense counsel introduce Hank’s statement to the police into evidence where Hank stated he was at his brother’s house the morning of July 19th? D.A Bloom made a big deal that Ted Brooks (Hank's brother) never came forward to vouch for Hank's alibi, but why didn't the police question Ted Brooks, Kenny Newman (Ted Brook's friend), and Hank's niece and nephew as part of their investigation after taking Hank's statement?
- (12) Why wasn't the waitress at the McDonald's drive-through window alleged by Tanya to have taken their take-out order called by defense counsel? This waitress could have stated if she had seen and waited on Hank and Tanya the morning of July 19th, and what the physical appearance and behavior of Hank and Tanya were. If this waitress had been called and testified she never remembered waiting on Hank and Tanya at the drive-in window on the morning of July 19, 1982, what would this have done to Tanya's credibility? How would this have altered the decision by the jury?
- (13) Why didn't defense counsel subpoena Tamya's aunt to verify that Tanya had spent the night at her place? If Tanya's aunt had to testify under oath that Tanya was at her house the evening of July 18th and morning of July 19th it would have clearly shown Tanya had lied about the rape.
- (14) Why didn't defense counsel call the cashier at the Citgo Quik-Mart where Tanya went in to get the key to the bathroom? The cashier could have described Tanya's appearance and behavior at that time. When Attorney Shulman was asked about this he said the clerk went back to college and he couldn't find him. Here's an attorney representing a man accused of a heinous crime for which he received a severe sentence and Shulman didn't attempt to locate this person. Just what type of representation did Hank receive at his trial?
- (15) Why didn't defense counsel subpoena State Police Detective Donald Gibbons and ask him for the results of his investigation while Hank was waiting trial? What was Gibbons investigating? For who?
- (16) Why didn't defense counsel subpoena James Beach and ask him where, when, and from who he got his information on Monday, July 19, 1982 that Tanya had been raped? Tanya was at the hospital and police station that day so how did James Beach find out about the rape on that day?
- (17) Why didn't defense counsel subpoena the attendants at the Westfield Drive-In, in Westfield, MA and ask them about a person (Hank) in a brown stationwagon having to be woken up after the movies (Cat People and The Thing) was over? Wouldn't this had substantiated that Hank and his car couldn't have been where Tanya claimed he was?
- (18) Why didn't defense counsel subpoena the attendants at the Riverdale Drive-In in Springfield, MA and ask them if they saw or heard anyone screaming and hollering for help as Tayna stated in her testimony?
As you can see if defense counsel had been better prepared, conducted an investigation, and subpoenaed the witnesses discussed above might the jury have come back with a different verdict?
