Mass. Supreme Court Upholds Hitman's Murder Conviction

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of Scott Foxworth, who was found guilty in 2009 of murdering a Framingham resident inside a Newton parking garage.

The commonwealth’s highest court refused to allow a new trial, according to court documents issued today, Nov. 12. The court also refused to reduce the degree of guilt.

In June 2009, a Middlesex Superior Court judge sentenced Foxworth to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole for the shooting death of Edward Schiller, of Framingham. The Sudbury native, 39, was shot in the head inside the Newton parking garage on Jan. 13, 2006.

The jury also convicted Foxworth, of Dracut, of conspiracy. He was sentenced to a concurrent prison term of 18-20 years.

On appeal, Foxworth’s lawyer challenged the denial by the trial judge of his motion to suppress statements Foxworth made to a jailhouse informant whom he alleged to be an agent of the commonwealth. The admission,
allegedly in violation of the spousal disqualification rule, involved statements Foxworth’s alleged co-conspirator made to the co-conspirator’s spouse.

In the summer of 2005, Foxworth was released from his prior prison stint. During that time James Brescia, a Raytheon manager, was served divorce papers by his estranged wife, Stacy Rock. Rock began dating Schiller, a former high school and college sweetheart.

Brescia, who lived in Waltham, blamed Schiller for why his marriage could not be saved, according to prosecutors.

Nancy Campbell, a Raytheon co-worker of Brescia, was Foxworth’s former girlfriend. She was granted immunity during the trial and testified against both Foxworth and Brescia about the murder plot.

Brescia had asked Campbell for the defendant’s contact information. He told her he wanted to hire the defendant to beat the victim. In early October, 2005, Brescia hired the defendant to beat the victim for $5,000, according to court records. Brescia told the defendant he would communicate with him by pay telephone to avoid being traced, according to court documents.

The defendant (Foxworth) began surveillance of the victim on Oct. 9, 2005, starting with his home in Framingham. On Oct. 14, Brescia met the defendant and paid him $4,000. The defendant enlisted a friend, James O’Neil, to help him. O’Neil and the defendant conducted surveillance of the victim at his place of employment and at his home during November and December. Brescia visited the defendant at his home in Dracut on Nov. 9 and 20. Brescia communicated by pay phone with the defendant more than 30 times in December, according to court documents.

After an upsetting visit with his wife and children on Thanksgiving Day, Brescia expressed to Campbell his anger and
hatred toward the victim. He said that if the victim were dead, he would be able to repair his relationship with his wife, according to court documents.

Brescia told Campbell that a beating would not suffice, and that he wanted the victim out of the picture, prosecutors said. Brescia offered Foxworth, who had previously served four years in in prison for second degree murder, an additional $5,000 to kill the victim, according to court documents.

Prosecutors were able to piece together the murder-for-hire plot using phone records, bank receipts, Internet searches and other paper trails.

According to court documents, Foxworth shared a cell with an inmate who later informed against him. Prosecutors said Foxworth confided in the inmate about the murder and admitted his involvement. He told the inmate that he could help the inmate make bail so that the inmate could do whatever it took to prevent Campbell from testifying against him. He also told the inmate about a map he had used that had the murder scene highlighted, which he wanted the inmate to locate before police discovered it.

Foxworth’s lawyer had argued Brescia’s wife’s testimony that Brescia told her he was going to “snap [Schiller’s] scrawny neck,” that if she ended up with the victim it “wouldn’t be good for [Schiller’s] health,” and that whatever happened to the victim “won’t get back to me,” were erroneously admitted in evidence and were a violation tof a spouse’s “private conversations with the other.”

The state’s highest court ruled that because the Brescia children were present during the conversation, the
statutory rule of disqualification does not apply.