Defense urges reversal in Castiglia manslaughter conviction, justices probe sufficiency of sleep-deprivation evidence

Mario Lorello, counsel for Mr. Castiglia, asked the court to overturn an involuntary-manslaughter conviction, arguing the Commonwealth’s case relied on a theory of sleep deprivation for which there was no direct evidence on the morning of the crash. "There was absolutely no evidence before the trial court as to whether or not mister Castiglio was sleep deprived on that particular day," Lorello told the court.

The heart of the argument concerned whether jurors, given the instructions, could reject the Commonwealth’s sleeping theory and still find felony culpability from the totality of the facts. A justice asked whether jurors could, despite doubt about sleep, conclude that the defendant’s failure to brake on a clear, straight quarter-mile stretch with two stopped school buses amounted to involuntary manslaughter. Lorello countered that to reach that result the jury would have to engage in speculation, which he said the law forbids.

"The jury under the instructions were not bound by the theory," Lorello said, but he emphasized that the record lacked supporting evidence for alternative explanations such as lighting, medical emergency, or other visibility problems. He repeatedly pointed to gaps in the record — including no testimony about the exact distance and no direct evidence the defendant had been asleep while driving — and argued those gaps make a felony manslaughter verdict untenable.

David Stock, arguing for the Commonwealth, told the court the facts were sufficient to uphold the conviction. "It was a clear day, a straight road. You had 2 stopped school buses, both with flashing lights ... Seeing this for a distance of a quarter mile, mister Castiglia drove his truck, did not change his speed, did not slow down for 16 seconds ... and slammed into the back resulting in the death of 2 children," Stock said, arguing that the sustained failure to act showed a reckless disregard for human life.

Justices pressed both sides with hypotheticals. Several asked whether removing the sleep-deprivation evidence would change the legal analysis; Stock maintained that the duration of opportunity to act (16 seconds and a quarter-mile sightline) and other conduct (attempted evasive action, lack of braking, and inconsistent statements to police) could support a finding that the defendant acted with criminal negligence rising to involuntary manslaughter. On that point he noted investigative evidence the defendant later told police a car cut in front of him, which prosecutors said the jury could treat as consciousness of guilt.

Defense counsel warned against treating post-accident statements or the tragic outcome as a substitute for the evidentiary showing required to prove a felony. Lorello urged that, in his view, the proper conviction on these facts was reckless driving rather than involuntary manslaughter, and that the court of appeals’ articulation of a sustained-inattentiveness theory deprived the defense of fair notice of the prosecution’s theory.

The argument turned on legal distinctions drawn in prior appellate opinions the parties cited (Mayo, Hargrove, Katie, Conrad, Cuffee) and on the Court’s view of whether sustained, prolonged inattention — absent direct evidence of falling asleep or intoxication — can amount to the higher culpability required for involuntary manslaughter. Counsel for the defense reserved rebuttal time and concluded by again asking the court to reverse the conviction.

The court’s next steps were not announced during the argument.