Man wins new murder trial because eyewitness failed to testify in person due to COVID-19 concerns

A Carver County man convicted of second-degree murder was granted a new trial after the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled his constitutional rights were violated when an eyewitness possibly exposed to COVID-19 did not testify in person.

Anthony James Trifiletti, 27, of Watertown, claimed self-defense when he shot and killed another motorist in May 2020 on Burns Avenue in St. Paul. A jury could not reach a verdict and the judge declared a mistrial in March 2021. A second jury found him guilty of second-degree murder in April, and he was sentenced to 12½ years in prison.

Trifiletti appealed the verdict of the second jury on the basis that the only eyewitness testimony was not available live and in-person. The witness, who was in the car with her boyfriend during the shooting, said she had been exposed to COVID-19.

She offered testimony in the first trial that contradicted Trifiletti's self-defense claim. She said she saw him "run to his vehicle and then I [saw] him grab a gun, shut his door and then fire," according to court records.

Trifiletti was driving on I-94 in St. Paul when a car collided with the rear of his truck, according to the criminal complaint. The drivers stopped and soon began to argue. Trifiletti legally possessed a handgun and shot Douglas "Dougie" Lewis, 39, of St. Paul, four times. Lewis was unarmed and died later that night at Regions Hospital.

Trifiletti told police that he feared for his life when he allegedly heard Lewis make reference to a gang. But the woman said she never heard such an exchange.

Instead, she told the jury that Lewis was walking away when he was shot. Evidence presented at trial however discredited the woman's testimony because experts said Lewis was shot in the front.

Trifiletti said he would not "pick the lesser of two evils." The district court said the options weren't in violation of his constitutional right, and ultimately Trifiletti opted for a transcript.

The jury acquitted him of the most serious charge, intentional second-degree murder, but found him guilty of second-degree murder while committing a felony and second-degree manslaughter.

Judge Randall Slieter wrote in the opinion issued Monday that "a witness's possible exposure to a contagious virus by itself does not render her unavailable for purposes of the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause if the witness is able to be present."

The judge noted the lack of state or federal case law addressing this issue. But Slieter wrote the District Court erred by allowing prosecutors to read her testimony into evidence in part because a Ramsey County public health official said it would reasonable for the witness to testify with social distancing and masking.

And rather than prove the possible COVID-19 exposure, the witness was advised by her doctor not to take a test and the court refused a virtual examination to determine her medical condition, Slieter wrote.

"The issue presented reflects a clash between the District Court's reasonable concern for the health and well-being of all those in the courtroom and the constitutional right of a defendant to confront his accusers," Slieter wrote. "The constitutional right of the defendant wins the clash."

Judge Carol Hooten, in writing the dissenting opinion, argued Trifiletti was able to cross-examine the witness in the first trial and he did not file for a continuance or allow live testimony using remote technology in the second trial.

She said the first cross-examination of the witness was "devastating" as the woman was discredited by the evidence, changing her story and also her criminal history involving credit card fraud. Rather than allow her to testify a second time and perhaps improve her credibility with a new jury, Hooten wrote that Trifiletti decided "quite reasonably" to use earlier testimony.

"Indeed, Trifiletti's strategy was successful in that the jury implicitly rejected most of [her] testimony by acquitting Trifiletti of the most serious charge brought by the state against him, second-degree murder with intent, which was based in large part upon her testimony."

Hooten wrote that he should not be relieved of the consequences of his choice. And she argued that it should be up to the discretion of the court to determine "the severity of her symptoms, the COVID-19 positivity rate and the level of risk posed to those in the courtroom."