Commonwealth v. DiBenedetto
458 Mass. 657
Mass.2011Background
- February 1994 jury convicted DiBenedetto and Costa of first-degree murder for Feb. 19, 1986 killings; earlier trial in 1988 reversed.
- Second trial featured Storella testimony and, for first time, sneaker DNA evidence; convictions affirmed in DiBenedetto II.
- 2005 motions for new trial based on newly discovered DNA; 2009 gatekeeper filings allowed appeals; case remanded for further findings and potential evidentiary hearing.
- Old sneaker evidence included a marginal phenolphthalein blood test; no confirmatory human blood tests were performed.
- 2004 DNA analysis found mixed profiles excluding victims; defense argued independently exculpatory and undermines Commonwealth’s case.
- Court remands to Superior Court for further findings on DNA evidence and its impact on DiBenedetto and Costa.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the new DNA evidence meet Grace standard for a new trial? | DiBenedetto argues yes; undermines prior blood evidence and creates real doubt. | Commonwealth contends evidence is marginal and does not change the outcome. | Remand required for further Grace analysis. |
| Does DNA evidence independently exculpate DiBenedetto? | DNA excludes victims as contributors; could show shooter was not DiBenedetto. | Strength of case remains; isolated exculpation not decisive. | Remand necessary to assess independent exculpatory value. |
| Should Costa be permitted to participate in remand and potential new-trial relief? | New DNA may affect both defendants; Costa joined with DiBenedetto on appeal. | Costa's rights must be considered separately if needed. | Costa to participate on remand; Commonwealth may challenge for both. |
| Is judicial estoppel applicable to Commonwealth’s positions? | Inconsistent positions argued from closing arguments to later positions. | Positions are not directly inconsistent; estoppel does not apply. | Judicial estoppel not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303 (Mass. 1986) (set forth Grace standard for new-trial on newly discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Caillot, 449 Mass. 712 (Mass. 2007) (remand for further findings on new evidence)
- Commonwealth v. De Christoforo, 360 Mass. 531 (Mass. 1971) (sound discretion standard for motions for new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (Mass. 1994) (Daubert-adjacent considerations for scientific evidence)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (standard for scientific reliability of expert testimony)
- Otis v. Arbella Mut. Ins. Co., 443 Mass. 634 (Mass. 2005) (judicial estoppel framework and elements)