BOSTON, July 29, 2015— The man who gunned down Albert Tyler Titcomb III over a $50 debt more than two decades ago will not receive a new trial, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.
In a decision released today, the Supreme Judicial Court denied a new trial for SHAWN T. FRITZ, finding that his numerous claims presented no evidence of prejudicial error during the 1996 trial resulting in his conviction for first-degree murder.
In appellate briefs submitted by Fritz’s defense attorney that the justices noted included “barely comprehensible” claims that were out of compliance with court rules governing appropriate appellate arguments, Fritz argued that testimony of certain witnesses was erroneously admitted at trial. The justices found that the admission of a lab report showing the victim’s blood alcohol level presented by the medical examiner rather than the report’s author was in error; however, the error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Other arguments, the justices found, presented no prejudicial error.
Among his arguments, Fritz argued that his rights were violated when the Superior Court trial judge allowed testimony of a witness who Fritz claims was acting as a government informant and purposefully elicited statements from him. The witness testified that on Nov. 22, 1994, he observed Fritz, Titcomb, and others enter the Charlestown building where Titcomb was found shot to death. He went on to testify that the following year, he and the defendant were held together after their separate arrests and Fritz made statements indicating he was in the area at the time of the murder. The justices found that no evidence presented indicated that the witness had a cooperative relationship with the government at the time the defendant made those statements. Further, the justices pointed out that testimony placing Fritz at the scene of the murder was cumulative of other evidence – including Fritz’s own admission.
He also claims error in the trial judge’s refusal to permit certain peremptory challenges by Fritz to dismiss three African American jurors after the judge determined that his challenges were racially motivated. The justices rejected this argument.
He additionally argued that he was due a new trial due to errors in the judge’s instruction to jurors, including the decision not to provide instructions regarding inadequacy of the police investigation – a claim the justices found meritless.
“On this record, there was no error,” the justices wrote.
The justices likewise found no error in the admission of evidence that Fritz made an escape attempt while awaiting trial and no likelihood of a miscarriage of justice presented by statements made in the prosecutor’s closing argument or in the closure of the courtroom during the first day of jury selection.
At trial, prosecutors presented evidence and testimony to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Fritz, Titcomb, and other acquaintances were in the area of 17 Carney Street on the day of the murder. Fritz and Titcomb walked into the building, followed soon after by other members of the group. Inside, Fritz fired a .32 caliber firearm five times, striking the victim three times, over an unpaid $50 debt.
Assistant District Attorney Paul B. Linn of the DA’s Appellate Unit argued the case on appeal. Fritz was represented by Rosemary Scappicchio.
–30–
All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
