BOSTON (Court TV) — Prosecutors say defense attorneys for a police officer accused of killing a woman he had a sexual relationship with misrepresented evidence to the jury in their opening statement.
Sandra Birchmore and Matthew Farwell. (Court TV/Facebook)
Matthew Farwell, 39, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of killing a pregnant witness or victim in an ongoing investigation and to charges that he killed the victim’s unborn baby. Sandra Birchmore was 23 when she was found dead at her home on Feb. 4, 2021, but prosecutors say she was just 15 when Farwell, then 26, began a sexual relationship with her. Farwell was already a Stoughton police officer when he met Birchmore, who was in the department’s youth program.
Farwell’s defense maintains that Birchmore’s death was a suicide, as the medical examiner ruled; prosecutors say Farwell’s DNA was found on the ligature wrapped around Birchmore’s neck and on a closet door handle.
Prosecutors filed two motions over the weekend, citing issues with the opening statements delivered by Farwell’s attorney, Kimberly Stevens. In one motion, they asked Judge M. Page Kelley to give a curative instruction when the jurors return to hear evidence on Tuesday, after prosecutors said Stevens misstated the law and lied about evidence to the jury. The motion said the evidence referenced in Stevens’ opening statement included two texts from Birchmore to friends that prosecutors say don’t exist.
Prosecutors also asked Kelley to let them call three women who allegedly had extramarital affairs with Farwell to testify. Kelley previously ruled that evidence of those relationships with adult women was not relevant to the current case.
But prosecutors say the defense opened the door to those affairs when Stevens acknowledged her client’s extramarital affair and claimed that his behavior — which included arriving at Birchmore’s home on Feb. 1, the day Birchmore died, wearing a mask — was consistent with an affair. Stevens told the jury that her client wore the mask, “which is what people having affairs might do,” and that Farwell’s only goal was to hide the relationship from his wife. The three adult women with whom Farwell had affairs, prosecutors said, “will say Farwell never took steps to hide their encounters. He never wore a mask or disguise. In fact, he had a cavalier attitude about their encounters. With this evidence, the jury will know that Farwell, an ardent anti-masker, was doing something on Feb. 1 that he did not do with his other adult affair partners. Farwell’s attempt to not be seen when he went to Ms. Birchmore’s apartment proves that he was there to kill Ms. Birchmore, and not merely present as a cheating spouse afraid that his wife may find out.”
The motion argued that Farwell’s attempt to hide his relationship with Birchmore by asking her to delete communications also points to his criminal liability when compared with his behavior in other relationships. “The government must be able to show that Farwell did not care about his wife finding out about his affairs. Farwell only cared about — and took steps to prevent — people from discovering his criminal conduct with Sandra Birchmore. … Farwell’s decision not to take this precautionary measure with the three adult affair partners proves that he knew Ms. Birchmore was different than these exclusively adult sexual partners. It is evidence of Farwell’s knowledge of Ms. Birchmore’s status as a crime victim (i.e., the victim of his sexual abuse at 15 years of age), and that their text communications regarding underage sex were incriminating and not merely cause for marital acrimony.”
The government is expected to call its first witness when court resumes on Tuesday, Oct. 13.
