MANSFIELD — An Ontario man, now living out of state, won’t be able to return home for this weekend’s showing of A Murder in Mansfield at The Renaissance Theatre.
Still, the Dr. John Boyle murder trial will never leave Kevin McMahon, because he was a juror on the case.
“Judge (James) Henson told us ‘It will follow you the rest of your life,’ and it has,” McMahon said. “It was emotional.”
After decades of silence on the topic, and still carrying the scars from the case, McMahon agreed to share his impressions from inside the jury box of Mansfield’s most famous murder trial.
Seats are still available for Sunday’s 3 p.m. showing of A Murder in Mansfield. Follow the link to reserve your tickets. A Q-A with Collier Landry and a panel of insiders will follow the show.
RICHLAND SOURCE: How long did the trial last for you from beginning to end?
McMahon: The trial has never ended, but our verdict ended. We felt pretty good the way it came out, with the final decision we made. We did the best we could with the information we had.
RS: Was there any disagreement among the jury pool?
McMahon: It took a long time to come up with the jury members because everybody had some information about the case. You had to have quite a few alternates. I wasn’t familiar with it. It was going to be a long trial, a lot of people were dismissed because of health, etc. The process of coming up with a fair jury was very time consuming.
RS: What was the makeup of the jury (men and women)?
McMahon: We looked at each other as people. I couldn’t tell you how many men or women, black or white. That wasn’t important to us. What was important to us was making the right decision. We did not have to say life in prison, death penalty. We just had to make a decision, guilty or not guilty. Sentencing was up to the judge. That was a relief.
RS: Who was the jury foreman and did that person say or do anything memorable?
McMahon: We were such a diverse group of people, I think that really helped us. We had different people with different backgrounds, a little bit of knowledge of a lot of things. I can tell you I was Number 6. The jury foreman had sat in on another trial at that time, and that was kind of an advantage that helped us. We made a calendar of times and dates, where people were at and what was going on and so forth. We just wanted to make sure everything coincided. I ended up serving on another jury later, very minor. And this experience was very helpful on that.
RS: What was the prosecutor’s key moment that served as the clincher?
McMahon: There was not one key moment at the trial. The prosecutor (James Mayer) did not have one moment that was the highlight of our decision. The smell of the tarp, that didn’t convict him, but that was a very memorable thing. There was a lot of things, a lot of evidence to go through.
RS: What was the defense’s key moment that hurt Boyle the most?
McMahon: We thought they had a very good defense for the most part, but we were surprised because the defense attorney (Robert Whitney) had such a big name in the community. We were all waiting for that one time or that one sentence that would sway us in another direction and it never came. Some of us in the jury felt there were other people involved. We felt that they knew more information, but because they were not asked, they were not on trial, there was nothing we could do about that information.
RS: What was your impression of Dr. Boyle?
McMahon: My personal opinion was I thought he was very cold at the trial. There wasn’t the emotion I thought we would see. That doesn’t mean he was guilty or not guilty. He kept writing down things. I never knew anything about him before. He was just a person sitting in the chair.
RS: What was your impression of Collier?
McMahon: I think Collier was very, very intelligent. I think he was around 13. He was very cool, very calm, especially with the pressure he was under. I was impressed with that.
RS: How long did you deliberate and what was that like?
McMahon: We deliberated one full day. We took it very seriously. We took it very business-like. The question that was asked before we even started was “Did we want to see the house in Erie, Pennsylvania?” We brought that back to Mr. Henson, he said “Do what you think is right.” But we felt we had enough information that we didn’t need to go there. But we did go to the house on Hawthorne Lane (where the murder took place). We had a lot of information, a lot of evidence that we had to ponder through, it was kind of overwhelming in one way. We went through a couple of different verdicts, everyone had their opinion. After we decided what the verdict was, there was silence in the room. We walked around. We kept quiet, it was very emotional for each one of us. I know when we left we all made sure that we made the right decision. None of us were happy but we were all satisfied with what had taken place. That was very important to all of us.
RS: How often do you think about the case today?
McMahon: When the trial was over and everyone left, the jury we just sat there, kind of relieved that it was over. Judge Henson said “This trial is over but this trial will follow you the rest of your life.” To me, it has followed me the rest of my life. It was very traumatic.
RS: You say Dr. Boyle wrote you letters. What would he say? Was it threatening? Did you report it to prison officials?
McMahon: I received them for a couple of years afterward, I don’t know how he got my name, my records, etc. Understanding they are copyrighted so I can’t discuss what’s inside the letters. I called Judge Henson and he said he was receiving them too, but we couldn’t disclose what was in them because they were copyrighted. I have the letters in front of me, I have 13 of them. They were never threatening. I don’t know if any other jury members received them, but I know some other people involved in the case received them, too. The last one I received was in 1993. It gives a return address in Arlington, Virginia. They were like 5 or 6 pages, they were typewritten and a lot of information on it. I read them like twice and refused to read them again. I’m not sure what to do with them but I plan on keeping them, along with videos of the trial.
RS: What was your impression of the judge?
McMahon: I was impressed with him before the trial but especially after the trial. He let us know how big the trial was going to be. He let us know the media was going to be a problem, and they were. They hounded us as soon as you walked out the door with cameras. It was a circus with cameras, trailers, satellite dishes. When the trial was over you were escorted out a different door. We didn’t talk, we went in different directions. This wasn’t a happy or fun time. We wanted to get back to a normal life but life has never been normal for me because of this case.
RS: Anything you would like to add that we didn’t ask you about specifically?
McMahon: I was 48 at the time, and I was an employee in a large business that was going through a troubled time. So I had that pressure also. I did not receive a dime for being a jury member. I wasn’t getting anything from my employment. I could have received a stipend but I did not receive that because my thinking was how much money are you going to get for just sitting there? I think it was my moral obligation to do what I had to do. There was no financial gain in it. That was not important for me.
We came close to being sequestered but we were able to do the job without that. The media was everywhere you went. I couldn’t watch television at all during the trial, any type of TV because it was covered by Cleveland, Columbus, everybody. No radio, no newspapers. If I went out to eat, many times I had to get up and leave because the people in the next booth were talking about the case. So I stopped going out to eat.
Trials like these, that are such high-profile can have very adverse reactions, not only personally but on family, friends and acquaintances. A situation did happen after the verdict was announced. A harassment issue arose that affected someone close to me and I had to consult Judge Henson about it. Judge Henson advised me that we could take legal action but asked if the hassle was worth the trauma of going through a harassment trial. I didn’t feel it was worth it. I chose not to pursue it.
We all just wanted to get our life back.
As for the jury we all said we should get back together sometime, but we never did. That would not have been a joyous occasion.
