Commonwealth v. Antone
90 Mass. App. Ct. 810
Mass. App. Ct.2017Background
- Police conducted controlled buys and surveillance in summer 2010; field tests on purchased substances were positive for cocaine and led to search warrants for Antone's home and vehicle.
- Police arrested Antone after a traffic stop and recovered five bags of suspected cocaine (aggregate ~266.88 g), packaging/cooking materials, scales, cash, and other distribution-related items from a room set up for processing.
- Primary chemist Della Saunders performed bench and microcrystalline tests, weighed samples, and submitted vials for confirmatory analysis; lab certificates dated September 8, 2010, listed Saunders as primary chemist and Annie Dookhan as confirmatory/assistant analyst.
- Antone pleaded guilty on April 25, 2012 to trafficking in 100+ grams of cocaine in exchange for a 10–12 year recommendation and nolle prosequi on other charges, avoiding a much longer mandatory sentence exposure.
- After revelations of Dookhan’s misconduct at the Hinton lab, Antone moved to vacate his plea claiming (1) he would not have pleaded guilty had he known, (2) prosecutorial nondisclosure of exculpatory lab information, and (3) Dookhan’s misconduct was newly discovered evidence.
- The special judicial magistrate and the motion judge applied the Ferrara-Scott two-prong test, found egregious government misconduct (Dookhan’s signature on certificates) but concluded Antone failed to show a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea; the motion to vacate was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Antone) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dookhan-related lab misconduct requires vacatur of plea | Antone would have gone to trial if he had known Dookhan’s confirmatory tests were unreliable | Even excluding Dookhan’s confirmatory work, primary tests, chain-of-custody, field tests, controlled buys, and circumstantial evidence made conviction likely; plea benefits were substantial | Denied — misconduct presumed but Antone failed to show reasonable probability he would have rejected plea |
| Whether Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory evidence (Brady/Mass.R.Crim.P.14) | Letters and warnings about lab protocol breaches withheld before plea deprived Antone of exculpatory information | Letters did not show Bristol samples were affected; even if disclosed, they would not have changed Antone’s plea decision given other evidence and plea benefit | Denied — nondisclosure/newly discovered claims fail for same prejudice reason under Ferrara-Scott |
| Whether Dookhan’s role as confirmatory chemist made primary testing inadmissible or useless | Confirmatory testing is far more discriminating; without it, primary bench tests may be unreliable for proving composition | Primary chemist’s affidavit showed independent preliminary testing and weight determinations; primary tests and other evidence could be admissible and persuasive | Denied — primary testing plus circumstantial evidence could support conviction; uncertainty did not establish likely rejection of plea |
| Whether plea’s sentence reduction negates claim of prejudice | Antone argued plea was involuntary because he lacked full knowledge of lab misconduct | Commonwealth emphasized substantial sentencing benefit (avoidance of mandatory decades) which a reasonable defendant would accept | Held — sentencing benefit weighed heavily; a reasonable defendant likely would have accepted the plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336 (adopting Ferrara-based two-prong test for Dookhan-related plea withdrawal)
- Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2006) (framework for assessing prejudice from lab misconduct preceding plea)
- Commonwealth v. Gaston, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 568 (2014) (discussing admissibility and persuasive weight of primary vs. confirmatory tests in trial context)
- Commonwealth v. Ruffin, 475 Mass. 1003 (addressing conclusive presumption when Dookhan signed certificates)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 460 Mass. 30 (relating prejudice standards for plea withdrawal and ineffective-assistance claims)