Bridgeman v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District
471 Mass. 465
| Mass. | 2015Background
- Annie Dookhan, a chemist at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory, engaged in widespread misconduct; thousands of drug convictions relied on her drug certificates.
- Petitioners Bridgeman, Creach, and Cuevas pleaded guilty in cases where Dookhan signed as "Assistant Analyst." They sought relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 after Scott established a two‑prong framework for withdrawing pleas tainted by Dookhan.
- Petitioners asked (1) that defendants granted new trials not be reprosecuted on more serious offenses or receive harsher sentences than under original plea agreements, and (2) that district attorneys must notify Dookhan defendants within 90 days whether they will reprosecute and, if so, conclude reprosecutions within six months.
- The Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) moved to intervene to protect the interests of indigent Dookhan defendants and to raise related issues (advocate‑witness rule, scope of cross‑examination, admissibility of testimony at trial).
- The single justice reserved and reported the case to the full court for decision on systemic remedies and related procedural and evidentiary issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants who withdraw guilty pleas because of Dookhan can be reprosecuted on more serious charges or receive harsher sentences | Petitioners: Reprosecution on greater charges or imposition of a higher sentence would chill postconviction relief; plea terms should cap reprosecution and sentence | Commonwealth: Issue is speculative until reprosecution occurs; normal rules allow harsher sentence after withdrawal | Held: If motion to withdraw plea is granted based on Dookhan misconduct, defendant cannot be charged with more serious offense than the plea nor receive a more severe sentence than under the plea agreement (sentence capped) |
| Whether CPCS may intervene | CPCS: Has statutory role and practical interest in representing thousands of indigent Dookhan defendants; existing parties do not adequately represent these systemic interests | Commonwealth: Petitioners adequately represent issues; CPCS seeks broader relief | Held: CPCS allowed to intervene as of right given its immediate, substantial interests and responsibilities |
| Whether a global remedy (vacate/dismiss all Dookhan convictions) is appropriate | CPCS: Case‑by‑case process is untenable; court should vacate convictions or dismiss with prejudice unless reprosecution within a limited period | Commonwealth: Prefer case‑by‑case approach; Scott/Charles provide framework | Held: Declined to implement a global remedy now; case‑by‑case procedures retained |
| Whether plea counsel may both represent defendant on a Rule 30(b) motion and testify at the evidentiary hearing (advocate‑witness rule) | CPCS: Dual role is necessary and efficient; rule 3.7 should not bar plea counsel from representing and testifying in non‑trial motion hearings | Commonwealth: Dual role creates conflict and rule 3.7 prohibits acting as advocate and necessary witness | Held: Rule 3.7(a) (trial‑focused) does not bar plea counsel from representing and testifying at a motion hearing; client consent advised and conflicts governed by rules 1.7/1.9 |
| Scope and admissibility of defendant testimony at motion hearings | CPCS: Cross‑examination should not probe guilt except where defendant claims actual innocence; defendant testimony at motion hearing should be inadmissible at later trial (to avoid self‑incrimination chill) | Commonwealth: Full context of plea decision may require questioning about factual guilt; testimony may be used at trial consistent with rules | Held: Scope of cross‑examination left to motion judge's broad discretion; testimony at motion hearing is admissible at subsequent trial only for impeachment if defendant chooses to testify (Simmons principle applied) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336 (Mass. 2014) (two‑prong framework and special evidentiary rule for Dookhan‑tainted guilty pleas)
- Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2006) (remedying government misconduct by restoring defendant to position but not unduly infringing other interests)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (prosecutor promises in plea bargains must be fulfilled)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968) (testimony at suppression hearing cannot later be used against defendant at trial on guilt issue)
- Smaland Beach Ass'n, Inc. v. Genova, 461 Mass. 214 (Mass. 2012) (discussion of advocate‑witness rule and when counsel may participate in pretrial proceedings)