Steven Bourgoin’s defense attorney Robert Katims speaks after Bourgoin was found guilty of five counts of second degree murder for the 2016 crash that killed five teenagers on I-89 in Williston in Vermont Superior Court in Burlington on May 22. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger
BURLINGTON — Lawyers for Steven Bourgoin, who was found guilty of five counts of second-degree murder in May, have asked a judge for an acquittal or new trial in new court filings.
Bourgoin was found guilty for crashing his car into an oncoming car while driving the wrong way on I-89 and killing the five teenagers inside. The jury found that Bourgoin was unable to prove that he was insane at the time of the crash.
Robert Katims, Bourgion’s lawyer, filed a post-trial motion on June 28, arguing the state provided “sparse evidence” about Bourgoin’s mental state the night of the crash.
“The State presented little to no direct evidence as to Mr. Bourgoin’s mental state on the night of the crashes,” Katims wrote.
State’s Attorney Sarah George contested Katims’ motion July 19, arguing that the evidence “sufficiently and fairly” supported the guilty finding.
“Entry judgement of acquittal by the Court following a contrary jury verdict is a drastic step which effectively substitutes the Court’s view of the evidence for that of the jurors’ and which precludes both appeal by the State and retrial of the defendant,” George wrote.
The judge in the case expects to rule on the issues raised in the motions in the next week.
During the trial, Katims had argued that Bourgoin was insane at the time of the crash, and that Bourgoin believed he was getting messages through electronic devices directing him on a top-secret government mission.
Prosecutors argued that his actions were intentional and that he was enraged by financial struggles and a child custody dispute with his ex-girlfriend.
In the post-trial motion, Katims referred to the two forensic psychiatrists who testified that Bourgoin was insane at the time of the crash, Dr. David Rosmarin and Dr. Reena Kapoor.
He wrote that the state’s witness, Dr. Paul Cotton, who testified that Bourgoin was not legally insane, had spent less time evaluating Bourgoin than Rosmarin and Kapoor had.
Katims argued that the state did not adequately rebut Bourgoin’s insanity defense, targeting Cotton’s testimony that Bourgoin was not insane at the time of crash.
“Through some convoluted interpretation of Vermont’s insanity statute, he ultimately refused to opine that Mr. Bourgoin was criminally insane,” Katims wrote.
Katims argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to prove that Bourgoin had been aware that he was driving the wrong way on the highway the night of the crash.
“The State’s limited evidence regarding Mr. Bourgoin’s state of mind at the time of the crash does not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bourgoin knew he was driving the wrong way on the interstate into oncoming traffic,” Katims wrote.
George wrote that the state presented “more than sufficient evidence” to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The State would argue that based on the testimony and evidence presented at trial, the Jury clearly could have inferred the Defendant’s intent from the nature of his acts,” George wrote.
George wrote that the jury considered all of the experts’ opinions and decided that those opinions were “only as good as the information those opinions were based on.”
Katims also filed a Rule 33 motion asking for a new trial. In that motion, he argued the court had erroneous rulings on evidentiary matters, which George contested in her motion.
Katims argued that George’s reliance on Rosmarin’s opinions as part of her explanation of her decision to dismiss cases against two other defendants who utilized the insanity defense would have been powerful evidence in the Bourgoin case.
“It would have been extremely powerful evidence for the defendant to put on that the State had relied on Dr. Rosmarin’s opinion, in part, in dismissing other pending murder and attempted murder charges based on sufficient insanity evidence,” Katims wrote.
Katims also cited the fact that two jurors had reached out to the judiciary asking about trauma counseling after the trial proved that they had been rendered impartial by the evidence.
George argued that those cases were not relevant and that the defense was aware of the doctor’s findings in those cases. She also stated that the jury’s verdict was unanimous.
A decision from Judge Kevin Griffin is expected shortly, as Griffin stated Monday the court expects the rulings on all issues raised in the motions within a week.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Judge to rule on motion seeking acquittal or new trial for Bourgoin.