Former Dartmouth officer’s jury conviction set aside by court, District Attorney responds

District Attorney Thomas Quinn, III announces that the unanimous jury verdict convicting former Dartmouth Police Officer, Shawn Souza, of Rape of a Child, Aggravated Rape of a Child by Age Difference and Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child over Fourteen along with a State Prison sentence of 10-15 years, has been set aside by the Court.

The Defendant was originally tried by a jury for crimes related to the youngest victim, in front of Judge McGuire in the Fall River Superior Court.  That trial resulted in a hung jury on June 13, 2022. At that first trial, the indictments which related to two victims were not tried together.  Subsequent, to the first trial (hung jury), the Commonwealth filed a motion to have the indictments tried together.  Judge McGuire, who presided over the first trial, allowed the motion after a hearing. This allowed both victims to testify in the second trial.

The case proceeded to a second trial in late September of 2024 in front of Judge Suzanne Sullivan.  According to the DA, neither the defendant nor Judge Sullivan raised any issue at any time before or during the second trial regarding Judge McGuire’s decision to allow both victims to testify. During the second trial the defendant had a large contingent of supporters present in the courtroom.  When the victim testified, three of her supporters sat in the back of the courtroom.  They were part of the Bikers Against Child Abuse organization (BACA); however, they wore no clothing that identified them as part of that group.  They accompanied the victim outside of the courtroom due to the victim feeling intimidated by the number of the defendant’s supporters present.  The DA stated that they accompanied the victim in the hallway, outside of the view of both judge and jury and were not disruptive. At no time during the trial or sentencing did the defense attorney or Judge Sullivan raise any issues related to the BACA representatives or make any mention their presence in the courtroom.  BACA has appeared numerous times in Courtrooms throughout the Commonwealth and multiple times in Bristol County without issue.

At the close of the evidence, Judge Sullivan denied the defendant’s motion for Directed Verdict, indicating there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury. The jury unanimously convicted the defendant on 10/2/24.  On 10/3/24 the defendant was sentenced to 10-15 years in the State Prison with 2-years-probation from and after on charges of Rape of a Child, Aggravated Rape of a Child by Age Difference and Indecent AB on a victim over 14. 

The DA released the following:

“The defendant then filed a Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty.  The only claim raised in the motion was that the Commonwealth failed to prove the elements of the indictments.  The Commonwealth responded to the claims in the motion.  The defendant’s motion did not raise the issue of joinder or BACA being present at the trial. The Defendant’s motion was then heard before Judge Sullivan on 11/18/24.  With no notice to the Commonwealth, the defendant raised an objection to the joinder of the indictments for the first time at the hearing.  A brief argument was heard by the court on that issue.  BACA’s presence at the trial was not raised or discussed by either party or the Court.  Judge Sullivan then set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial.  In her written decision she indicated that she agreed the indictments should have been severed.  The judge on her own motion also raised for the first time, with no facts developed on the record, that BACA’s presence was an issue at trial. 

“We then filed a motion for reconsideration.  The Commonwealth asked for an evidentiary hearing on the BACA issue as there was no evidence in the record at all to support the judge’s claim. The Judge could have intervened on both issues at some point during the trial if there was concern.  Not only did the Judge not do so, but both issues were never raised or mentioned during the trial.  The court denied the Commonwealth’s Motion for Reconsideration, without a hearing.  The guilty verdict by the jury was set aside by the Court and the defendant was released from custody.  The Commonwealth is appealing.”

“In my over 36 years of practicing law, I have never seen a Judge deliberately nullify a unanimous jury verdict without giving the District Attorney’s Office the right to a full hearing.  The Motion was allowed based on issues that were not properly raised by the defendant or were raised for the first time by the Judge in her written decision without a proper record for her to make such a ruling,” District Attorney Quinn said. “The jury unanimously convicted the defendant, a former police officer, of serious child rape charges.  The Judge’s decision sets aside the jury’s six-hour deliberations and takes away a verdict that was well supported by the evidence.  The court’s decision undermines the jury system and people’s confidence that justice is being done.   Issues of fairness that arise during the trial are for the appellate process which proceeds in a way where a trial record is reviewed, and all parties have the appropriate opportunity to be heard. “