By REBECCA EVERETT
@GazetteRebecca
Daily Hampshire Gazette
NORTHAMPTON — A decision by a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court justice has cleared the way for a third trial for Cara Rintala, the Granby woman accused of killing her wife in 2010.
No date has been set for the third trial. Rintala’s attorney, David Hoose of Northampton, said Friday the trial “is not going to happen any time soon as far as I’m concerned.”
After deadlocked juries led to mistrials in 2013 and 2014, Hoose asked the Supreme Judicial Court to dismiss the case. Hoose argued that prosecutors have insufficient evidence to convict Rintala, and were violating her right to not be charged with the same crime twice.
Associate Justice Margot Botsford disagreed, issuing a ruling Thursday denying Hoose’s request and allowing the state to move forward with a third trial.
Rintala is accused of strangling her wife, Annamarie Rintala, in their Granby basement on March 29, 2010. She has pleaded not guilty to a charge of first degree murder, and maintains she was out running errands with her daughter at the time her wife was killed. She has been released on $150,000 bail since February 2014, a month after the second mistrial.
“We are pleased the Single Justice denied the defendant’s petition, and in doing so, ruled that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to convict the defendant of murder,” the prosecutor, First Assistant Northwestern District Attorney Steven E. Gagne, said in a statement Friday. “Hopefully this decision will allow the case to continue moving forward to a final resolution.”
Hoose said he is disappointed by the decision and is exploring his options, which may include appealing Botsford’s decision to the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court.
“There’s still a lot to do before trying to schedule a third trial, not the least of which is an appeal,” he said in a phone interview Friday.
Rintala has been in court several times in the seven months since Hoose filed the appeal, but the court could not set a date for the third trial while awaiting the Supreme Judicial Court ruling. Rintala was asking for relief from her conditions of release so she could travel in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Botsford wrote in her decision that she disagreed with Hoose’s argument that the state was violating Rintala’s right not to be tried twice for the same crime — known as double jeopardy. According to case law, Botsford wrote, double jeopardy does not apply in cases that end in mistrials as long as the prosecution presented evidence “legally sufficient to warrant a conviction.”
Hoose argued that the Commonwealth did not have enough evidence to secure a conviction, but Botsford disagreed after reviewing transcripts from both trials and other records.
“The trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to warrant a finding of guilty on the charge of murder,” she wrote.
The prosecution presented evidence about a possible motive and that Rintala had the opportunity to commit the crime, Botsford wrote, and jurors heard testimony about the Rintalas’ “tumultuous relationship” including arrests for domestic violence and dueling restraining orders.
Prosecutors also presented evidence about Annamarie Rintala’s significant debt and financial problems, and her relationship with a male co-worker that allegedly put pressure on the relationship between the two women.
Cara Rintala told police she left the home with their 2-year-old daughter around 3 p.m. on the day of the murder, and found her wife’s body in the basement when she returned home just after 7 p.m., Botsford wrote. Annamarie Rintala, her body covered in wet paint, appeared to have died from strangulation approximately six to eight hours earlier, officials have testified.
Rintala has challenged the admissibility of that time frame, as the medical examiner was not on scene and made the estimate based solely on first responders’ description of the body.
Botsford said in her decision that a jury “reasonably could infer” that Annamarie Rintala was killed by her wife in their home before the time Cara Rintala told police she left the home, based on the medical examiner’s estimate about the time of death as well as Annamarie Rintala’s failure to respond to a text she received at 1:53 p.m.
A jury could also conclude she was guilty based on other evidence, Botsford wrote, citing evidence and testimony that Rintala discarded a rag with her wife’s blood on it while driving around that afternoon, and signs investigators said they found indicating the crime scene may have been staged to appear as though someone broke into the home.
Botsford wrote in a footnote that the district attorney’s office “has identified additional evidence and testimony they intend to present at a third trial.
Rebecca Everett can be reached at [email protected].
