Family murder case involving alleged assisted suicide and prosecutorial immunity error

4.2.12 WC: 191694 that he would end his life with her. When the children learned of this, they pleaded with their father not to take his life. Peter relented. No one tried to talk Patricia out of her decision to commit suicide, for two reasons: first, she had made up her mind; second, it wasn’t really suicide, since her act would only hasten her imminent and painful demise by a few weeks. Patricia selected the day and time of her death and planned a formal farewell dinner for her family. Among those in attendance, in addition to her husband and children, were her stepfather and her two half brothers. There was wine and toasts. Patricia wore an elegant dress and had her nails polished. After dinner they watched the movie Harold and Maude, about an elderly woman who commits suicide to prevent herself from “growing old.” When it was over, Peter Rosier and his wife retired to the bedroom and made love. After bidding farewell to family members, Patricia Rosier took twenty pills that she had selected for her suicide. She quickly fell into a coma, from which she expected never to wake. Had her suicide succeeded, there would have been no case. But soon the coma began to lighten. Peter didn’t know what to do or what to think. Would she awaken or remain comatose? Would there be brain damage? Pain? Emotional turmoil? All Peter knew was that his wife did not want to awaken. What was his obligation to his comatose wife? Would he be breaking his final promise to her if he did not assist her in achieving her goal: a painless and dignified death? He could not ask her advice. The decision was his to make, but it was her decision—she had already made it and acted on it, albeit incompletely. Peter administered morphine, but it was not enough. While Peter was outside the house, pacing and crying, Patricia’s stepfather decided to end her life by suffocating her. He placed his hands over her nose and mouth. She died in her sleep. The stepfather and brothers simply informed Peter that Patricia had died, without providing any further details. For nearly a year, the circumstances surrounding Patricia’s death remained a family secret. Then Peter decided to do something foolhardy: he wrote a book about his late wife’s courage and gave an interview to a local television reporter in which he related what he believed were the circumstances of his wife’s death, still unaware that her stepfather had administered the coup de grace. As soon as the interview was aired, the local prosecutor began a murder investigation. They wanted to interview Patricia’s stepfather, but he demanded total immunity from prosecution for himself and his sons as a condition of being interviewed. That should have tipped off the authorities that he might have something to hide. But instead of asking for a “proffer” —a truthful outline of the facts—before deciding whether to grant immunity, the prosecutor simple agreed to his condition. The stepfather then disclosed for the first time that it was he who had caused Patricia’s death. The prosecutors had committed a blunder feared by every law-enforcement official: they gave the wrong person immunity. But they could not back out of their deal. Now the only possible target was Peter Rosier. Despite the certainty that Peter had not actually killed his wife, and that she wanted to take her own life, the prosecutor treated the loving husband as if he were indeed the triggerman in a 193 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017280