Commonwealth v. E.A.

A masked-man with a gun robbed a Speedy Lube during regular business hours and made off with over $1,000 and a batch of state inspection stickers. Two employees at the Speedy Lube claimed that they immediately recognized the voice of the gunman as E.A., an employee who was allegedly fired earlier that day. The DA’s pretrial “offer” to E.A. was 8-20 years in jail in exchange for a guilty plea. E.A., who was on state parole for a homicide quickly turned the offer down and elected for a jury trial. At trial, the employees testified that they worked with E.A. every day for 6 months and claimed that they were positive he was the masked gunman. The DA argued that because E.A. used to handle the state inspections at the business, the fact that inspection stickers were stolen, and that the gunman seemed familiar with the location of the stickers, that coupled with the voice identifications of the witnesses E.A. should be found guilty. The defense attacked the lackluster investigation of the police (including their failure to conduct a voice lineup), demonstrated how any number of Speedy Lube customers could have had the requisite knowledge to pull off the heist, and highlighted the lack of corroborating evidence. After deliberating for just 2 hours, E.A. was acquitted of all charges.