Commonwealth v. Ellis, 475 Mass. 459

Background

In 1995 Ellis was convicted (third trial) of first‑degree murder and armed robbery for the 1993 killing of Boston Police Detective John Mulligan; prior appeals and motions had been litigated and some convictions (firearm possession) stood.
Key trial evidence: Rosa Sanchez identified Ellis as near the victim's car before the shooting; two firearms later recovered (one the victim’s service weapon, the .25 caliber was the murder weapon) were linked to Ellis via testimony that he possessed and helped dispose of them days after the killing; latent fingerprints on the victim’s car were attributed to co‑defendant Patterson (later held inadmissible on reliability grounds).
In 2013 Ellis filed a second motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and alleged nondisclosure: material showing extensive misconduct by detectives Robinson, Acerra, and Brazil, and investigative leads pointing to third‑party suspects were newly produced from ACD and FBI files, hotline tips, and a September 9, 1993 theft (Martin theft) implicating the victim in corruption with those detectives.
The motion judge found six categories of newly discovered evidence (Martin theft, FBI informant reports, Foley allegation, ACD drug‑dealer robbery tip, Hansen report, and hotline tips), concluded corrupt detectives had a conflict of interest in the murder investigation, and that the defense was deprived of material evidence; she granted a new trial for the murder and armed‑robbery indictments.
The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the Foley allegation and hotline tips were not newly discovered (had been disclosed), that direct estoppel barred relitigation of police‑corruption arguments, and that the judge abused her discretion in ordering a new trial.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed: it held the Foley allegation and hotline tips were properly treated as newly discovered, direct estoppel did not apply because the victim’s complicity with corrupt detectives was newly shown, and the judge did not abuse her discretion in finding the new evidence would probably have been a real factor in jury deliberations.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Ellis's Argument	Held
Whether Foley allegation and hotline tips were "newly discovered"	These materials were in Commonwealth files and were disclosed to defense before trial	Trial counsel did not receive them; discovery process was irregular so materials were not reasonably discoverable	Court: Not clearly erroneous to find them newly discovered; defense counsel credibility and discovery irregularities supported finding
Whether direct estoppel bars relitigation of police‑corruption evidence	Earlier litigation and appellate review already considered detectives' misconduct; Ellis is relitigating same issue	New evidence shows the victim was complicit with corrupt detectives shortly before his death, altering significance of prior misconduct evidence	Court: Direct estoppel does not apply; the victim’s complicity materially changed the issue and was not litigated previously
Whether newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial (abuse of discretion)	Strong physical evidence (possession of weapons, proximity evidence) undermines claim that new evidence would alter verdict	Corrupt detectives had motive to suppress leads; unpursued third‑party leads and corruption evidence would probably be a real factor for jurors	Court: No abuse of discretion; given totality, new evidence could have been a real factor in jury deliberations; new trial affirmed
Whether nondisclosure (Brady) independently requires new trial	Commonwealth disputes materiality and disclosure	Judge found Brady violation as additional basis	Court affirmed new trial on newly discovered evidence; did not resolve Brady findings in detail but accepted judge’s basis as alternative ground

Key Cases Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (standard for admissibility of expert methodologies)
Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994) (court discussed Daubert‑style reliability review for expert testimony)
Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472 (1979) (permitting evidence that police failed to investigate third‑party suspects)
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 432 Mass. 767 (2000) (related appeal addressing admission issues and reversed convictions of Patterson)
Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303 (1986) (standard for newly discovered evidence/new trial analysis)
Commonwealth v. Cowels, 470 Mass. 607 (2015) (recent statement on "newly discovered" evidence test)
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 443 Mass. 707 (2005) (doctrine of direct estoppel in relitigation of previously decided issues)