If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.

-Mark Twain

Ami Sneed was the state’s key witness. At its core, this is a case of credibility. Who should be believed, Ami or Brian? The evidence presented in the instant motion most assuredly corroborates Brian’s consistent version of events. Even more critically, the newly presented evidence powerfully undermines Ami’s credibility in ways that likely would have altered the jury’s assessment of her testimony.  

 

1/22/96 MEDICAL APPOINTMENT

A follow up appointment specific for the clavicle fracture was scheduled for 1/22/96 at 8:40AM. Brian’s current legal team discovered this information in 2015 through a release signed by Christopher Affonso, Sr.

On cross examination, when asked specifically what time the appointment was, Ami falsely testified that it was at 10:00AM.

Not only did she perjure herself by stating a later time, but she also perpetuated the lie in conveying the impression that she could not bring Christopher to the appointment because she would be in class.

Sneed created an extravagant story to not only conceal the appointment time to deflect culpability, but to specifically suggest that the missed appointment was Brian’s fault and specifically because the appointment was scheduled for a time when she could not take him herself. She testified, “(Brian) said that he would take him if he had time.”

This purported statement by Brian had not previously been disclosed to the defense. This testimony went unchallenged by the defense, apart from Brian’s assertion that he did not know about the appointment. When asked, Sneed testified that she “told Renee” (the prosecutor, now retired superior court judge.

In no police report, pre-trial proceeding or anywhere else in the official record did Ami ever state that Christopher had an appointment at 10:00AM on 1/22/96, the morning of his death. At trial, Sneed lied when she testified for the very first time that the appointment time was 10:00AM.

Ami testified that on the morning of his death (and scheduled appointment with the pediatrician), Christopher woke up “wobbly” and “stumbling” as he had been all weekend.

On cross examination, when asked specifically if she called Dr. Leimert, Ami testified that she “had intentions on calling but [I] hadn’t called yet.” And that, “When I had time to call, I was going to call.”

According to Sneed, the original plan that morning was to drop Christopher at daycare. They all left the house around 9:00AM. Tarissa was dropped off at Ami’s sister’s house. It wasn’t until they had already left the house and were on their way to daycare that she decided not to send him because he was falling asleep in the car on the way. According to Ami, Brian said he would take him to the appointment if he had time. At this point, Sneed’s lie is so extensive that it is just not plausible. 

• Why would they be on their way to drop Christopher off at daycare at 9:30-9:45AM if he had an appointment scheduled for 10:00AM?

Most assuredly, Christopher was in his mother’s care at the time he should have been at a medical appointment.

• What would have happened if Ami brought Christopher to the 8:40AM appointment or if she called the pediatrician in the morning when he was wobbly or at any time during the day as she testified she intended to but did not?

 

MORE MEDICAL NEGLECT

Christopher Affonso Jr. was a victim of neglect by a mother who for reasons known only to herself declined to seek out medical treatment in the days leading up to his death despite being well aware of numerous warning signs that he was not well, then lied to the jury to cover up for that ill-fated decision.

Standard discharge instructions for a head injury typically include a list of post-concussion symptoms to watch for and to return earlier in the event of any problems or concerns.

At trial, Ami testified that on 1/20/96, while at her sister Heather’s house, she called the pediatrician’s office about Christopher’s symptomology and was told to “watch him for a couple of days and make an appointment if it continues.

Dr. Jean Leimert, Christopher’s pediatrician confirmed in an affidavit and testimony at the evidentiary hearing that no one in her practice would have advised Ami to merely “monitor” her son, because the symptoms Sneed claimed to have reported as “commonly associated with complications following a head injury.” Any such call would have resulted in a directive “to take her child immediately to the emergency room.” Further, a log of the call including date, time and context would have been logged in Christopher’s record. There is no such entry in his medical record.

Ami failed to bring Christopher to his pediatrician, Dr. Jean Leimert for scheduled appointments on five separate occasions; six including the morning of his death.

As Leimert’s affidavit makes clear, Sneed’s testimony about her interactions with the pediatrician was demonstrably false in several important ways.

 

DAYCARE BRUISES

WORD day care nurse Terry Copper described her observation of three bruises on Christopher’s forehead several days before his death. Significantly, Copper did not testify, and the two daycare workers who did testify described seeing “a bruise” on the forehead, so the jury never learned that Copper saw three separate forehead bruises and made a contemporaneous record of her observation in the daycare record.

Two staff from WORD Inc. Child Care Daycare testified as to bruises found on Christoper during a routine trip to the bathroom. The workers documented the bruises and the program coordinator; Janet Souza testified as to her specific conversation with Ami. During cross-examination, Amy outright denied any conversations whatsoever with daycare workers about the body bruises on Christopher.

Through direct examination by the prosecutor, Souza testified that during the conversation, Ami stated that Christopher had gotten the bruises when he had the fall. Souza was asked if Ami said anything else about him and testified that [Ami] “…made a comment, kind of like he looks like an abused kid, huh?”

On cross examination, Ami was asked specifically if she recalled the conversations with day care staff who expressed concern over the bruises where she said something about him looking like an abused child.

Ami responded, “No.”

When the defense attorney asked again if she said anything to that effect, Ami testified, “No, I didn’t.”

 

ATTEMPTS TO COVER NEGLECT:

Ami’s versions of events of the day of Christopher’s death were extensive and convoluted. She had given a number of different versions of events, at the hospital, during her first and second stationhouse interviews, at the probable cause hearing, and even on the stand at trial. And her story had changed on a number of details. Not only did she offer several different versions at various times; she compounded her inconsistency but falsely testifying that she only told two versions of events. Brian’s legal team detailed these versions through several pages of the instant motion.

Ami’s description and accounting of bruises on Christopher were equally numerous and inconsistent. As she had done from the beginning of her interactions with police and medical personnel, Sneed minimized her knowledge of Christopher’s prior injuries, portraying herself as a caring and attentive mother.

The jury did not know that Sneed was initially considered a suspect by the police. The prosecutor knew that Sneed had retained a lawyer prior to testifying at the probable cause hearing, and in a letter to the prosecutor dated 2/6/96, that lawyer wrote, “the indication of her being a possible target of the continuing investigation warrants my direction [to her] to remain silent at this time.”

Trial counsel did not confront Sneed with the content of this letter, thus the jury never learned that Sneed had taken affirmative steps to protect herself after learning she herself might be at target of the police investigation, nor did they learn of her possible motivation to deflect police attention from herself to Brian.

 

PERJURY:

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268, Section 1 provides, “….Whoever commits perjury on the trial of an indictment for a capital crime shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years.”

The record categorically and demonstrably proves that Ami repeatedly perjured herself on the witness stand. In the case of capital murder, there is no statute of limitations. As such, the Commonwealth could consider charging Ami, their key witness with perjury at any time.