Documents related to the fatal police shooting of Denis Reynoso which were provided to The Bay State Examiner in response to a public records request earlier this year are once again hosted on our Scribd account. The documents were removed by Scribd earlier this year after the Essex County District Attorney's Office realized that it had failed to redact some private, legally privileged information about three police officers.
Assistant District Attorney David F. O'Sullivan sent The Bay State Examiner a letter explaining the error that included the a CD that was supposed to contain a new copy of the documents with the information properly redacted. The CD turned out to be blank. After contacting O'Sullivan by phone, he apologized for the mistake and sent another CD which did contain the documents.
The Bay State Examiner requested these documents after the district attorney's office released its report on the Denis Reynoso shooting, clearing the three officers involved in the shooting of any criminal wrongdoing.
After reviewing the documents and video interviews with the police officers involved in the shooting, I found discrepancies in the story told by the police and important information that never made it into the district attorney's report which I detailed in an article published in March.
Since the article was published, the district attorney's office has rejected The Bay State Examiner's request for more records related to the shooting.
The district attorney's office has refused to release police radio transmissions, 9-1-1 calls, and emails, citing the “investigatory” exemption to the public records law.
The district attorney's office is also standing by its decision to redact a police report containing statements by Denis Reynoso's five-year old son, who witnessed the shooting, even though it did not redact statements by other witnesses from similar reports.
The district attorney's office initially declined to release video-recordings of interviews that were conducted with non-police witnesses because they would reveal the identities of the witnesses. The district attorney's office has rejected a second request for transcripts of these interviews with any personally identifying information about the witnesses redacted. David O'Sullivan stated that the interviews were not transcribed during the district attorney's office's investigation and it is under no legal obligation to create transcripts for us.
We plan to appeal some of the district attorney's office's decision to the Supervisor of Records.
If you appreciate our reporting, please consider making a donation.