SALEM — First Judge at Salem District Court Randy Chapman found retired Lynn Police Lieutenant John Scannell not guilty of carrying a firearm while intoxicated at a bench trial Wednesday morning.
On Jun. 20, 2020, Scannell, who had retired less than two months prior, kicked over live fireworks set off at a childrens’ graduation party at 82 Birch St.
Two police officers responded to reports of fireworks in the area, and conversed with Scannell for approximately 30 minutes.
Scannell, who was carrying a loaded Glock handgun in his right pocket, was not disarmed until Sergeant Tim Hallisey arrived on scene, suspected Scannell was drunk, and asked him to hand over his gun.
When Essex Assistant District Attorney Vincent Yadgood presented Scannell’s gun and ammunition to Chapman as evidence, Scannell’s attorney James O’Shea did not object.
Hallisey testified that the Glock was loaded with six rounds in the magazine and one bullet in the chamber when Scannell handed it to him. He said that Scannell showed signs of intoxication at the time he surrendered his weapon.
“I noticed an odor of alcohol coming off his breath, I noticed he had glossy eyes, and he was leaning up against a pole,” Hallisey said. “Six were in the magazine, one was in the chamber.”
When O’Shea cross-examined Hallisey, he focused his defense on the fact that neither of the first responding officers reported that Scannell showed signs of intoxication. Hallisey also confirmed through a line of questioning, that he was not aware of Scannell’s leg injury until after the arrest.
“One of the things that he had indicated was that Mr. Scannell was bleeding from his knees and his thumb. Is that right?” O’Shea asked Hallisey.
Hallisey answered “yes,” and also confirmed that Officer Dylan Smith, who responded first on scene, did not disarm or arrest Scannell. Hallisey also said that Scannell did not exhibit slurred speech or uncooperative behavior.
“There’s just simply not enough evidence to confirm that he was under the influence of alcohol. Hallisey testified that had he known there was an injury that was reported in another report that he had reviewed, that would have changed his opinion,” O’Shea said.
When the defense called Scannell’s neighbor, Joseph Travato, to the stand, Travato said that Scannell was shoved to the ground, sustained an injury, and did not show signs of intoxication.
“I saw his elbow come out, and he shoved John violently … John fell back on his rear end,” Travato said. “He was perfectly fine [sober]. In the 21 years I’ve known him, I’ve never seen him inebriated or drunk at all.”
In his closing remarks, Yadgood said that the Commonwealth sufficiently proved Scannell guilty of carrying a firearm while intoxicated through Hallisey’s testimony, the gun, and the ammunition.
“While he was speaking with the officer, he [Hallisey] detected an odor of alcohol coming from the person. He observed his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and he formed the opinion based off of his experience that Mr. Scannell, based on the signs and symptoms that he saw, was under the influence of an intoxicating beverage,” Yadgood said.
Yadgood added that Scannell had a holster at his side that day, yet carried the firearm in his pocket — arguing that Scannell’s inebriation prevented him from storing his firearm safely.
“At the station, it was revealed that Mr. Scannell had a holster on his hip. At some point in time Mr. Scannell had drawn that firearm and had placed the firearm into his pocket while he had a perfectly good holster on his person,” Yadgood added.
O’Shea said in his final remarks that the Commonwealth could not meet the burden of proof that Scannell was intoxicated while carrying his firearm.
“We have the sergeant who testified that he can’t determine based on odor how much someone had to drink, we have an officer who indicated that his opinion would have changed if he that Mr. Scannel was injured and another officer hadn’t noticed the same,” O’Shea said. “All of these things, and the absence of them prohibit the Commonwealth from having met their great burden of having proven beyond reasonable doubt that alcohol had anything to do with this case.”
Chapman ruled that while the prosecution successfully proved that Scannell was in possession of an operable firearm and ammunition, there was insufficient evidence supporting Scannell’s intoxication.
“On the basis of the facts that have been presented, the reasons that I just indicated, I do not believe the Commonwealth will sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the third element [Scannell’s intoxication]. I believe there was probable cause to charge him, but I do not believe the evidence can stand beyond a reasonable doubt, so I am going to find the defendant ‘not guilty,’” Chapman said.
