GREENFIELD — Testifying in Franklin County Superior Court on a motion to suppress evidence on Tuesday afternoon, State Police Trooper Blakeley Pottinger said that murder suspect Taaniel Herberger-Brown and the victim, Christopher Hairston, were seen walking together in Greenfield on the night of the alleged murder.
Herberger-Brown, 44, and his attorney, Nicholas Horgan, appeared before Judge Jane Mulqueen and the case’s prosecutor, Assistant Northwestern District Attorney Steven Gagne, to discuss the defense’s motion to suppress footage of Herberger-Brown’s initial interaction with police when he was located in Albany, New York. Mulqueen ultimately took the motion under advisement but did not issue a decision on Tuesday.
Discussing the investigation, Horgan asked Pottinger, “You later learn and obtain body-worn camera [footage] from the night that this incident is alleged to occur, where Mr. Herberger-Brown and Mr. Hairston are in the city of Greenfield at night, walking around the streets, and get involved with the police or have an interaction with the police?”
“We did receive body cam footage of that incident, or where he was located with the victim,” Pottinger responded.
Herberger-Brown was arrested on a murder charge at Albany International Airport on April 23, 2024, after reports of a foul odor brought police to his former apartment at 92 Chapman St. the day before. Upon arrival, Greenfield Police Officer Brent Griffin discovered a decomposing body. The victim was later identified as Hairston, 35, of Pittsfield.
While being investigated by Greenfield Police and Massachusetts State Police, Herberger-Brown allegedly told officers that a man, who he believed to be on drugs, had broken into his apartment and engaged in a physical altercation with him. Toward the end of the altercation, Herberger-Brown told police that the victim’s “heart stopped,” according to a police report written by Pottinger.
Tuesday’s motion to suppress evidence spotlighted a legal debate between the defense, which argued that Herberger-Brown’s initial police questioning occurred while he was in custody and had to be read his Miranda rights, and the prosecution, which argued that the initial police questioning at the airport was more casual in nature, and not formal enough to warrant a reading of his Miranda rights.
Reviewing a still photograph from a body-worn camera that depicted the moment police made contact with Herberger-Brown, who was seated in a hallway outside the airport’s Military Courtesy Room, Horgan argued that his client was, given the circumstances of his questioning, not free to leave if he chose to.
“It’s a very small hallway. He’s sitting, never gets up, and he’s immediately approached by two law enforcement officers. Maybe there were 2 feet between them, blocking in his path of travel. … There’s at least eight or so officers around the hallway, they’re in the area,” Horgan argued. “It’s completely incredible to sit here and form a realistic, reasonable conclusion that Mr. Herberger-Brown was going to just be allowed to either walk away from the airport, regardless of if he had a ticket or not, or just get on an international flight to go see his mother in British Columbia. That, factually, just does not have a ring of truth, no matter how much they say it. … Mr. Herberger-Brown was in custody.”
However, both Pottinger and State Police Detective Lt. Steven Hean testified that, until Herberger-Brown told police about the alleged altercation that occurred in his Chapman Street apartment roughly 30 minutes into his initial interview at the airport, officers would not have been able to stop him if he chose to walk away or board a flight.
Gagne, arguing that Herberger-Brown was not in custody during his initial questioning at the airport, explained that officers met Herberger-Brown where he was, did not inform him that he was a suspect in the case and addressed the suspect in a cordial manner, rather than an accusatory or hostile one.
“Mr. Herberger-Brown walked himself into the airport,” Gagne said, describing officers’ first interaction with the suspect as “conversational.” “He chose where to sit, they met him on his terms. They didn’t confine him or his movement in any way. So I think that factor weighs very heavily against there being custody. Second factor is whether the officers conveyed to the person being questioned any belief or opinion that he was a suspect. You’ll notice in the interview, they never once say, ‘We know what you did. We know you killed somebody. There’s a dead body in your apartment and it’s all on you.’ They were simply asking him questions. … It’s one of the most cordial interviews, non-accusatory, non-aggressive interviews that I’ve seen.”