Commonwealth v. Hardy, 984 N.E.2d 727

Defendant convicted of first-degree murder in 1995; conviction affirmed on direct appeal and denied relief under c. 278, §33E.
Second motion for a new trial (2008) alleged ineffective assistance for failure to raise several trial errors; denied without evidentiary hearing; gatekeeper relief granted by single justice.
Moran body found in Medford park in 1994 with multiple stab wounds and a gunshot to the face; trial lasted over three weeks; verdict of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty.
Pivotal trial issues included courtroom closures, cross-examination about inducements to a key witness, a Bowden instruction, and admissibility of a consciousness-of-guilt inference from false police statements.
Appellate standard: review under Saferian framework for ineffective assistance; court rejected several claims as not prejudicial or not error, affirmed denial of second motion for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Public trial closures ineffective assistance claim	Hardy; counsel waived publicly by silence but not knowingly	Counsel unaware of public trial rights; closures prejudicial	Not ineffective; closures reasonable given dangers and containment of proceedings.
Cross-examination about inducements to a witness	Murphy received promises; prosecutor communicated deal	Counsel should have probed privilege and communications	Error in limiting cross-examination, but no prejudice established.
Bowden instruction required	Bowden instruction necessary per Matthews for potential defenses	Bowden not required; not an element of guilt	No error; Bowden instruction not required here.
Consciousness of guilt instruction permissible	Instruction should have been used to show false statements reflect guilt	Instruction violated due process if improperly given	Permissive inference allowed; did not violate due process.
Prosecutor vouching on direct appeal/ineffective appellate counsel	Federal law could yield reversal; state standard insufficient	Better result under federal standards possible	Rejection of ineffective appellate counsel; Massachusetts standards applied.

Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (Mass. 1974) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel; conduct below reasonable level prejudices defendant)
Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472 (Mass. 1980) (Bowden instruction related to tests not conducted; evidentiary scope not a constitutionally required defense element)
Commonwealth v. Michel, 367 Mass. 454 (Mass. 1975) (cross-examination of witness bias; no attorney-client privilege barrier to inquiry about promises)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (U.S. 1974) (prosecutor's improper comments must be viewed in context for due process impact)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1986) (prosecutor's remarks considered in whole; not automatically reversible.)
Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1985) (permissive inferences permitted if reason and evidence justify)