WILKES-BARRE — With Jessica Alinsky’s murder trial more than half over and the prosecution winding down, the case took an unexpected twist Tuesday when the defense claimed a surprise call from a renowned Australian forensics expert could undermine the testimony of a key state witness.
Alinsky’s defense immediately sought a mistrial, alleging prosecutors intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence for more than a year.
“There’s been a Brady violation,” defense attorney Demetrius Fannick told the judge. “Had there not been a Brady violation, your honor, I would have had that information a year ago.”
Fannick referred to a violation of the ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland which held that it is a violation of due process to suppress evidence deemed favorable to a defendant who requests it.
The surprise caller, Fannick explained, had left a voice mail at his office Friday saying he was Dr. Mark Reynolds, an Australian blood pattern expert who teaches courses on the subject and serves as forensic science consultant manager for the Western Australia Police.
Reynolds, Fannick explained, said he was familiar with Alinsky’s case.
“I admit, at first I was a bit skeptical,” Fannick said.
Fannick said he contacted the caller at an Australian phone number and Googled Reynolds’s name, finding a match to the visage he saw in video communications.
The attorney alleged Reynolds, who was 13 hours ahead of Eastern Time in Perth, Australia, had information about the testimony of prosecution witness Trooper John Corrigan, who testified last week that blood found at the scene showed Alinsky shot her boyfriend, 34-year-old correctional officer Matthew Ryan Gailie, and then tried to make it look like he killed himself over money troubles in September 2011.
“Nothing is consistent with a self-inflicted gunshot wound,” Corrigan testified.
According to Fannick, Reynolds claims to have attended a workshop in Bethlehem in March 2014 with Corrigan.
An online flyer for the event, an 80-hour training session called Bloodstain Pattern Analysis on Fabrics, describes Reynolds as an instructor who previously served as a regional vice president of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and is a member of the Scientific Working Group on Bloodstain Pattern Analysis.
As part of the seminar, participants were expected to put together a presentation of a case report — and Corrigan used Alinsky’s case, Fannick said. He asserted that Corrigan had conversations with Reynolds that are relevant to the trial.
What the exact claims are remained a mystery. Every time Fannick sought to explain the nature of Reynolds’ appearance in the case, Assistant District Attorney Daniel Zola objected, saying the comments were “clearly inadmissible” hearsay testimony that shouldn’t be broadcast in open court.
An email to Reynolds’ government account returned an automatic reply saying he was out of the office. A message left at a cellphone number listed in the reply was not immediately returned.
Zola contended that prosecutors have a right to cross-examine Reynolds — if in fact that is who the caller is.
“It appears to me that what we’re getting into here is a battle of experts,” Zola said.
Luzerne County Judge Tina Polachek Gartley said Fannick’s allegation “clearly has some very serious ramifications for this trial” but agreed the prosecution had a right to cross-examine the witness.
“I need your witness,” Gartley said.
She put off a ruling on Fannick’s mistrial motion and allowed testimony to resume while Fannick worked on contacting Reynolds.
Prosecutors wrapped up their case by showing jurors a video statement Alinsky gave troopers four days after the shooting and playing jailhouse recordings of her phone conversations.
The video — which itself caused a full day’s delay in the trial Monday when Fannick objected to wires from a lie-detector test being visible on a table — was played in redacted form Tuesday afternoon after prosecutors got an expert to tightly crop the footage on Alinsky.
In the video, Alinsky often breaks down crying as she describes what happened the night of Sept. 2, 2011, claiming she came home from a bar and got into an argument with Gailie. She claimed she had been facing away from Gailie when she heard a shot and turned around to find Gailie shot on the couch — a different story than she previously offered troopers when she said she had been upstairs at the time.
“I miss him and I love him,” Alinsky said. “All this over a stupid fight over money, an inanimate object.”
Asked why she moved Gailie’s body and put the gun in his hand after the shooting, Alinsky said she had been in shock and she panicked.
In the jailhouse recordings, jurors heard Alinsky deny moving the weapon in a conversation with her mother.
“All their theories are wrong,” Alinsky said. “I didn’t put the gun back in Matt’s hand.”
The prosecution, wrapping up its case Tuesday afternoon, entered all its exhibits into evidence before Gartley dismissed jurors until 9 a.m. Thursday.
A hearing on Fannick’s motion and Reynolds’ testimony was set for this afternoon.