39 N.E.3d 723
Mass.2015Background
- In 2003 Cameron was convicted of two rape indictments based in part on DNA testing showing a secondary male DNA source on the complainant's underwear.
- The primary DNA source excluded Cameron; the secondary source was described as inconclusive or not excluding him at trial.
- Cameron moved for a new trial in 2009; a 2013 motion to amend was denied without a hearing.
- Independent lab Bode later tested sixteen loci and determined the secondary source was female, excluding Cameron as donor.
- The motion judge and Appeals Court denied relief; the Supreme Judicial Court granted review to assess the newly available DNA evidence.
- The Court vacates the convictions, holding new DNA evidence would likely have been a real factor in the jury's deliberations, warranting a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does newly available DNA exclude Cameron and require a new trial? | Cameron contends the new DNA would cast real doubt on the conviction. | Commonwealth argues the new evidence is not likely a factor in deliberations. | Yes; new DNA would likely have altered the verdict, necessitating a new trial. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not challenging DNA admissibility or securing a DNA expert? | Cameron asserts ineffective assistance for failing to object and to hire a DNA expert. | Commonwealth contends no proven prejudice from counsel’s performance. | The issue is considered but not resolved on the record; the conviction vacated for new trial purposes. |
| Did the admission of the DNA evidence as nonexclusion prejudice Cameron? | DNA evidence linking to a secondary source without clear exclusion biased the jury. | Commonwealth contends the evidence was probative and properly admitted. | The evidence was properly characterized as nonexclusion and prejudicial; error supported by new DNA ruling. |
| Should the Grace two-prong test for newly discovered evidence govern the outcome here? | Newly available evidence is newly discovered and casts real doubt on the conviction. | Grace test requires evidence to be new and to cast real doubt on justice of conviction. | The test is satisfied; new evidence likely affected deliberations and supports a new trial. |
| Do findings justify remand for a new trial rather than other relief? | New trial is appropriate to allow reconsideration with exculpatory DNA. | No alternative relief proposed beyond remand for trial. | Judgments vacated; remanded for a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mathews, 450 Mass. 858 (Mass. 2008) (admissibility and interpretation of DNA test results; case-by-case basis)
- Commonwealth v. Nesbitt, 452 Mass. 236 (Mass. 2008) (nonexclusion evidence and need for statistical explanation)
- Commonwealth v. Mattei, 455 Mass. 840 (Mass. 2010) (statistical explanation for nonexclusion evidence; probative value vs prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Cintron, 435 Mass. 509 (Mass. 2001) (newly discovered or newly available evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 469 Mass. 340 (Mass. 2014) (newly discovered DNA evidence; credibility and impeachment context)
- Commonwealth v. Cowels, 470 Mass. 607 (Mass. 2015) (new DNA testing can negate physical evidence; impact on credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303 (Mass. 1986) (two-prong test for new trial based on newly available evidence)
- Commonwealth v. DiBenedetto, 458 Mass. 657 (Mass. 2011) (standard of review for motions for new trials; rigor in Rule 30(b))