Murder arraignment for Kian Willis, 21, at Brockton District Court

Summary

The transcript outlines a court case involving a defendant accused of killing 27-year-old Patrick in Brockton. Surveillance footage, phone records, and witness statements suggest the defendant's involvement. He was the last person in contact with the victim and lied about arranging an Uber. The two shared a relationship that violated probation office policies, and the defendant feared exposure. Surveillance showed a man, possibly the shooter, following the victim before the murder. The evidence raises probable cause, pointing to the defendant either as the shooter or aiding the crime, invoking joint venture liability under Massachusetts law.

Takeaways

• 📅 The incident occurred on November 12th, involving a 27-year-old victim named Patrick.
• 🚔 The police responded to a ShotSpotter alert of three shots fired on Keith Street in Brockton.
• 🤵 The defendant was the last person to have phone contact with the victim and was known to him from work.
• 🏢 The defendant worked for the Office of Community Corrections (OCC) and was not supposed to befriend clients like the victim.
• 🌿 The victim and defendant had smoked pot together and had sexual relations, violating OCC policies.
• 🏠 The defendant feared the victim might disclose their relationship or friendship, risking his job.
• 🚫 The defendant was advised of his Miranda rights during questioning and was told to stop the interview.
• 🗣️ The defendant made spontaneous statements about lying about calling an Uber for the victim.
• 🕵️‍♂️ The investigation revealed the defendant was dropped off near the crime scene shortly before the shooting.
• 📞 Phone records and surveillance video corroborate the defendant's presence and movements around the time of the shooting.
• 🔍 The evidence suggests the defendant was either the shooter or involved in the shooting, possibly with a motive to silence the victim.

Q & A

What is the general nature of the case described in the script?

The case involves the shooting and killing of Patrick, a 27-year-old victim, in Brockton. The defendant is being accused of being involved in the murder, either as the shooter or as part of a joint venture.

What was the relationship between the victim and the defendant?

The defendant knew the victim because the victim was a client of the Office of Community Corrections (OCC), where the defendant worked. They had struck up a friendship that violated OCC policies, and the defendant admitted to having a sexual relationship with the victim.

Why might the defendant have been motivated to harm the victim?

The defendant expressed concerns that the victim might reveal their personal relationship or the fact that they met through OCC, which could have led to the defendant being fired from his job.

What evidence suggests the defendant was in the area during the time of the shooting?

Phone records, surveillance footage, and witness interviews place the defendant in the area around the time of the shooting. Surveillance video shows a male following the victim before the shots were fired.

Did the defendant initially cooperate with the police investigation?

The defendant initially spoke with the police but invoked his Miranda rights during the interview, asking for a lawyer. However, he made spontaneous statements afterward, admitting that he lied about calling an Uber for the victim.

What role does surveillance footage play in the case?

Surveillance footage captures the victim and a male suspect walking near the crime scene before the shooting, and the suspect is seen running away shortly after the shots were fired. However, due to camera limitations, the actual shooting was not captured.

How did the police confirm that the defendant lied about arranging an Uber?

The police subpoenaed Uber records, which confirmed that no Uber was called as the defendant had initially claimed.

What legal instruction does the prosecutor mention regarding the defendant’s involvement?

The prosecutor references the Massachusetts joint venture law, which holds that the defendant could be liable either as the shooter or as someone who aided and abetted the crime.

How did the police link the defendant's location to the scene of the crime?

Phone records showed that the defendant’s phone was pinging off a cell tower near the murder scene around the time of the shooting, confirming his presence in the area.

What spontaneous statement did the defendant make after the police interview ended?

After the interview ended and as he was being escorted out of the police station, the defendant made an emotional, spontaneous statement, saying, 'I didn’t call an Uber, I lied.' This contradicted his earlier claim.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Victim's Death and Investigation

The court is reviewing the case of Patrick, a 27-year-old victim who was shot and killed on Keith Street in Brockton. ShotSpotter detected three shots, leading police to the scene. The defendant, who was the last person to have phone contact with the victim, arranged an Uber for the victim to come to his house. The defendant worked for the Office of Community Corrections (OCC), where he met the victim, a client at the time. They developed a personal relationship that violated OCC policies. Investigators found evidence of them smoking marijuana and having sexual relations. The defendant expressed concerns that the victim might reveal their relationship or how they met, which could have led to his termination. The defendant was interviewed by the police, became emotional, and later admitted to lying about calling an Uber for the victim.

05:00

🕵️‍♂️ Surveillance Footage and Timeline of Events

Surveillance footage and phone records provide a clearer timeline of the events leading to the shooting. ShotSpotter alerted police at 6:25 PM, shortly after the defendant was dropped off near the crime scene. The defendant called his friend twice—once immediately after the shooting to ask for a ride. Surveillance video shows the victim and a male suspect walking separately but converging. Although there’s no footage of the actual shooting due to camera motion sensors, the suspect is seen fleeing the scene afterward. Phone records confirm the defendant’s presence near the crime scene, corroborating his involvement. The evidence establishes probable cause that the defendant is either the shooter or played a role in the victim’s death under Massachusetts law.

Keywords

💡Victim

The victim in this case is Patrick, a 27-year-old man who was shot and killed on Keith Street in Brockton. His relationship with the defendant is central to the case, as it is revealed that they had a personal connection that may have motivated the crime. Understanding the victim's role is crucial to grasp the emotional and legal implications of the case.

💡Defendant

The defendant is the person accused of being involved in the shooting of Patrick. He had a personal relationship with the victim, which violated workplace policies since the victim was a client of the Office of Community Corrections where the defendant worked. The defendant's concerns about this relationship becoming public are key to understanding his potential motive.

💡Office of Community Corrections (OCC)

The Office of Community Corrections is a department in Massachusetts related to probation services. The defendant worked here, and the victim was a client. Their inappropriate relationship, formed against the policies of OCC, is a crucial detail in understanding the professional risk the defendant faced, potentially leading to the crime.

💡ShotSpotter

ShotSpotter is a technology used by police to detect gunshots in real time. In this case, it alerted the police to the three shots fired at the crime scene. The evidence provided by ShotSpotter helped confirm the time of the shooting, which is important for establishing the timeline and connecting it to the defendant’s actions.

💡Uber

Uber is mentioned as part of the defendant's initial false claim that he had called the service to transport the victim. This lie is significant because it demonstrates the defendant's attempt to mislead investigators and avoid suspicion, which later contributes to the evidence against him when it is confirmed that no Uber was called.

💡Motive

Motive refers to the reason behind the defendant’s potential involvement in the crime. In this case, the defendant may have been motivated by fear that the victim would reveal their personal relationship, which could have caused the defendant to lose his job and potentially exposed his sexual orientation. The motive is critical to establishing intent in the legal case.

💡Surveillance Video

Surveillance video plays a major role in piecing together the events leading up to and after the crime. It shows both the victim and a man believed to be the shooter walking near the crime scene. Although the camera did not capture the actual shooting, the footage corroborates the timeline of events and places the defendant near the scene.

💡Grand Jury Subpoena

A grand jury subpoena is a legal tool used to gather evidence, in this case confirming details about the Uber and the defendant’s phone records. It helped solidify the facts against the defendant, especially by proving that his initial claims were false, further linking him to the crime scene.

💡Phone Records

Phone records were used to trace the defendant’s calls around the time of the shooting. They showed that he called a friend to pick him up from a location near the crime scene shortly after the shooting, placing him in close proximity to the event and supporting the theory that he was involved.

💡Joint Venture Instruction

The joint venture instruction is a legal concept under Massachusetts law where multiple people can be held responsible for a crime if they shared intent or assisted in the crime. In this case, the defendant is suspected either of being the shooter or of assisting in the murder by notifying the shooter of the victim’s location, thus making the joint venture instruction relevant.

Highlights

The victim, Patrick, was 27 years old and was shot and killed in Brockton on Keith Street.

ShotSpotter detected three shots in the area, prompting a police response.

The defendant was the last person to have phone communication with the victim.

The defendant worked for the Office of Community Corrections, where the victim was a client, and their friendship violated OCC policies.

Investigators learned that the defendant and the victim had a close relationship, including smoking pot together and engaging in sexual relations.

The defendant expressed concern that the victim might disclose their relationship, which could lead to the defendant being fired from his job.

During police questioning, the defendant admitted to lying about calling an Uber for the victim.

Phone records and surveillance footage show the defendant was in the area of the shooting around the time it occurred.

A surveillance camera captured the victim walking down the street followed by a male suspect, believed to be the shooter.

The shooter crossed the street behind the victim just before the shots were fired.

Though the cameras froze during the shooting, footage captured the suspect running away afterward.

The defendant called his friend twice after the shooting, asking to be picked up near the scene.

Phone records confirmed the defendant made these calls from the vicinity of the murder scene, pinging off a nearby cell tower.

The evidence suggests the defendant had a motive to want the victim killed due to the fear of their relationship being revealed.

Under Massachusetts law, the defendant could be considered either the shooter or an accomplice in the shooting.

Transcripts

for the court's approval

stay tuned for a second I understand

that council doesn't certainly need to

David the court like two weeks ago 12

November the victim Patrick took America

rare he was 27 years old at the time was

shot and killed here in the city of

Brockton on Keith Street police

responded there after shot spotter

detected three shots were fired in that

area the defendant before you was the

last person have phone

station with the victim and so he was

the very first person that the police

had injured the text just seemed to

appear that the defendant was arranging

for an uber to pick up the victim and

bring it to his house so when the police

met with the defendant before you

acknowledged that you knew the victim

actually rather uniquely defendant

before you until very recently works for

the Office of Community Corrections

which is sort of a subset of the

probation department here in

Massachusetts and you knew the victim

because the victim was a client of OCC

at the time they struck up a friendship

which was against the policies and rules

of the OCC they began hanging out

investigators learned that they found

out about number of occasions they may

have smoked pot together on a number of

occasions and the victims attorney the

defendant also told police that he had

had sexual relations with the victim

previous to that it appears that no one

indeed defendants family may have been

aware that he was homosexual or bisexual

and it appears that the defendant before

you may have been concerned that the

victim was going to either tell people

about their relationship or was going to

tell people about their friendship

having met at OCC which would cause the

defendant to be terminated from his job

the defendant expressed these concerns

to the police when he was interviewed to

them it was also related to police to

another about witness a friend of the

victim

this relationship existed and that the

defendant would have had some concern

over people learning of the relationship

and the nature of it the interview went

on it became apparent at some points

that the defendant even to be advised of

his Miranda rights so he was and at that

time captain please stop questioning him

into the lawyer present

so the energy was terminated however as

the police were escorting the defendant

out of the police station he became very

emotional and made spontaneous

statements to the police

quote actually Alexa I didn't want to

lie to you guys I feel so awful and I

didn't call an uber

I lied the statements were all

spontaneous from the defendant as he was

exiting the police station

subsequent grand jury subpoena did in

fact confirm some of those statements

that an uber was never called and that

appear to be rude to get the victim to

leave his home

what the police do no for witness

interviews and the phone records and

surveillance video was that ShotSpotter

went up at 6:25 that night we know that

the defendant before you was dropped off

approximately fifteen minutes prior to

the shooting in the area of the shooting

by a friend of his who gave him a ride

there surveillance video shows that

after the friend dropped him off the

friend arrived at his girlfriend's house

approximately five minutes away at 6:15

that evening we know that there were two

calls one of them one minute after the

shooting where the defendant called his

friend to come pick him up

second phone call and that just a few

minutes later there's a formal phone

call by the defendant called that same

friend and asked him to come pick him up

near the safe location where he had just

dropped him off which was the Huntington

suspect in the city of Brock honey it

was just the end of the street where the

shooting had occurred it's also just a

little over a thousand feet from where

the victims home is where he would have

been coming out of that night

surveillance video in the area put

together from a couple locations shows

the least that there is a man that

appears near that area in a time frame

consistent with what the other evidence

provides to us that shows someone's

worth lurking and highly perhaps looking

out for someone just prior to the shots

being fired another surveillance video

does capture the victim walking down

Keith Street on one side of the road and

a male walking down behind him across

the road the the male who is the shoot

we believe is the shooter is closing the

gap between the two and at the last

minute crosses over so that he's on the

same side of the street as the victim

and is directly behind him they go out

of view of that camera at that time they

are however picked up on and brought to

the city camera and that camera shows

those two men the victim and the shooter

meeting however those cameras are motion

sensor and because at the time of the

shooting no cars were driving down Main

Street to set the sensors off the camera

freezes at that point so we don't have

surveillance video of the actual shot

fired or flash or anything of that

nature but we have shots that happened

immediately after that that same footage

captures the same male suspect running

back down Keit Avenue in the direction

of Warren Avenue to the location in the

direction of the location where the

defendants

minutes later after making that four

minute phone call to his friends and

saying that he needs to be picked up

right away outside that location so that

information is also corroborated by full

records at the police obtained pursuant

to a search warrant you know that what

the defendant made those calls not only

from his friends where it was but he's

pinging off a tower at 138 Main Street

which is the closest tower to the murder

speed and so we know definitively that

the defendant is in that area this

information that the report that you

have in front of you establishes

probable cause that the defendant is

either the shooter or at the least at

the area and involved in the shooting

and so much as he had the motive to want

to kill the victim and he may have been

there simply to notify that other person

who the victim was and to order a shot

but he also at this point we have not

ruled out that he is actually the

shooter involved either way under

Massachusetts law under the joint

venture instruction