Uncategorized

Relevant Evidence Of Consent And Credibility Denied By Judge In State Trooper Rape Case 

 

If you haven’t read Part 1 of Exposing Trooper Angela Guerrera you can catch up by clicking here.

The rape shield statute in Massachusetts law is designed to protect rape victims from essentially being slut shamed by slimy defense attorneys. It prevents evidence from being submitted at trial that suggests that the sexual reputation of a rape victim was the cause of his or her sexual assault. Such evidence could prejudice a jury and make them less likely to render a guilty verdict. However, there are exceptions:

Section 412.    Past Sexual Conduct and Alleged Sexual Reputation (Rape-Shield Law)

(a) Rape Shield. Except as otherwise provided, evidence of the reputation or specific instances of a victims sexual conduct shall not be admissible in any criminal or civil proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct.

(b) Exceptions. The following specific act evidence may be admissible:

(1) evidence of the victims sexual conduct with the defendant;

(2) evidence of the victims recent conduct alleged to be the cause of any physical feature, characteristic, or condition of the victim; and

Number 2 would include something like showing that a rape victim who had bruising received those bruises from riding a mechanical bull. Number 1 is the exception that applies in the case of former Trooper Robert Sundberg and current trooper Angela Guerrera.

Robert Sundberg was found guilty by a jury largely because Judge Heidi Brieger did not let critical evidence to be presented to the jury that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trooper Guerrera was lying about several aspects of her complaint. Judge Brieger was appointed in 2012 by Deval Patrick. She graduated from Smith College, a far left women’s only college in Northampton. Prior to being appointed as a judge she worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the organized crime drug task force.

Judge Brieger’s reason for not letting in this evidence is because it was not permitted due to the rape shield laws. Earlier this week I obtained this banned evidence, and it’s clear that it meets the exceptions listed under the rape shield law. Let’s look at it.

For whatever reason she wrote sideways on top of the submitted evidence. What it says is that “the evidence is denied insofar as the evidence is precluded by MGE 412.” She also recognized that the evidence shows clear signs of consent, but claimed that “consent once does not imply consent forever.”

But as you will see, the evidence wasn’t presented to prove that he had consent every time he slept with her. The case against him centered around his character, his jealousy, his drinking, and his rage. The prosecution painted a picture of him as someone who was capable of rape, not that there was physical evidence of rape, much like the Senate recently did with Justice Kavanaugh.

The evidence was presented by the defense to prove that she was lying about him stalking her, lying about now having knowledge of being filmed in a sex tape, and lying about his abusive nature in their relationship.

Trooper Guerrera claims that she was raped by the defendant on December 2010, June 15, 2015, and April 22, 2016. It also suggests that other rapes happened within that time frame, yet she not only stayed with him, she moved in with him and brought her two kids with her.

If she was repeatedly raped by this man then why would she bring her kids around him?

Trooper Guerrera and Robert Sundberg were planning on buying a house together, but in the Spring of 2016, right before she alleged that she was repeatedly raped by him, he backed out of the real estate deal.

The submitted evidence purports to show that throughout this time in which she was allegedly a repeated victim of rape she continued to send him sexually provocative text messages, participated in threesomes and partner swapping, and made a sex tape. She also told a friend that she had “baby fever,” suggesting that she wanted to have a child with him.

It should be noted that around this time Mr. Sundberg was invited to Disney World by his mother because she wanted to treat him and his kids (her grandkids). However, his ex-wife was also invited since she is the mother of this three children. Angela Guerrera helped break up their marriage as Bob Sundberg repeatedly cheated on his wife with her, and was caught three separate times. When Trooper Guerrera found out about this trip to Disney World she reportedly lost it and was enraged. When you combine that with him backing out of the real estate deal she had the motive to fabricate a claim like this.

In 2011, after the first alleged rape, Trooper Guerrera and Sundberg participated in an orgy at at the Liberty Hotel in Boston. He invited his friend Michael Lebel and she invited her friend Iracy (sp) DaSilva.

This evidence is relevant, and should’ve been admitted as an exception to the rape shield law because it shows “(1) evidence of the victims sexual conduct with the defendant.”

It also refutes the claim that he was an overly jealous boyfriend, if he was willing to be in the same room as her as she performed sexual acts on someone else. It would also give the jury a better idea that she was retaliating against him for pulling out of the real estate deal.

The next piece of evidence that was denied involved a man named Jefferson Davis (dead serious), who participated in sexual acts with Guerrero and Sundberg. In other words, in this 2015 event (after she was allegedly raped by Sundberg) she was tagteamed by her boyfriend and his buddy.

The Commonwealth’s case centered around the alleged controlling nature of Mr. Sundberg, and among other things she alleged that he accused her of cheating on him. Certainly it would cast doubt in a juror’s mind if they knew that this man who was supposedly jealous allowed other men to have sex with her in front of him.

Then there’s the sex tape. Trooper Guerrera told police that he filmed her in December 2015 (months after the second rape occurred), and that she had no knowledge she was being filmed. The video depicts a loving and consensual intimate relationship.

On the tape you can hear her saying “can we record it?” Even more damning, at the end of the tape she says, “fuck, oh I got the camera, I mean the phone….you gotta dry that off.” In other words, she excreted love fluids that got on the camera, which she admittedly knew was there the entire time. This completely destroys her credibility and would no doubt have led to a not guilty verdict.

Later in December of 2015 Guerrera and Sundberg went to a party sponsored by a man named Kevin Carroll in Acton. Trooper Brian Moran interviewed Paul Petkowich, whose business the party was held at, and he said that female strippers were invited. He also said that Guerrera was the only woman who was brought to the event (besides the strippers), but that she seemed happy to be there and willing to participate.

One of the strippers gave her a lap dance and began to touch her breasts through her shirt while Sundberg was sitting 5 feet from her. She did this on her own, and without his prompting.

Then came the sex toys. Both Sundberg and Guerrera put a dildo in their mouth while lying down on the floor, and a stripper stood over them and inserted the dildo into her penis fly trap. This certainly would refute the stalking claim.

All of this was inconsistent with the picture she painted of their relationships and of his behavior.

The rape shield law exists to prevent humiliation and embarrassment of a rape victim with unrelated evidence. However, this evidence wasn’t submitted to smear her, but to show the court the real extent of their sexual relationship. This evidence refutes the claims that he’s jealous, and by not being able to present it at trial his constitutional rights were violated.

The exceptions to the rape shield law exist in case the law is “in conflict with a defendant’s constitutional right to present evidence” that might show a jury that she is unreliable or lying.

It’s the judge’s duty to decide whether or not the relevance of this evidence outweighed the “prejudicial effect on the victim.” The Judge clearly believed her story and did not want her to be embarrassed in court, so she prevented Sundberg from showing a jury the real extent of their relationship.

There is no possible way a jury of 12 could convict this man after reading what you just read. This evidence clears the bar of the rape shield law and should have been presented in court. Instead Trooper Guerrero was allowed to present herself as a victim of 6 years of rape, abuse, and stalking, despite the existence of evidence to the contrary.

There were 12 jurors on this case. If just one of them is reading this blog right now perhaps they will have second thoughts about how they voted and it could help in his appeal. If one of you is reading this right now and would like to speak anonymously, please email turtleboysports@gmail.com. We would love to speak with you.

 

Please consider supporting local journalism by donating to the Turtle fund:




Follow us on Youtube, SoundCloud, Twitter, and Facebook.

Hello Turtle Riders. As you know if you follow Turtleboy we are constantly getting censored and banned by Facebook for what are clearly not violations of their terms of service. Twitter has done the same, and trolls mass reported our blog to Google AdSense thousands of times, leading to demonitization. We can get by and survive, but we could really use your help. Please consider donating by hitting the PayPal button above if you’d like support free speech and what we do in the face of Silicon Valley censorship. Or just buy our award winning book about the dangers of censorship and rise of Turtleboy: 

 

Show More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Close