Commonwealth v. Hunt, 999 N.E.2d 1104

In November 2003 Alberto “Tito” Gonzalez was shot and killed in New Bedford; police identified Shawn Hunt and Jonathan Pittman as suspects but the then–district attorney declined to present the case to a grand jury.
In early 2004 Fernanda Gonzalez (the victim’s mother) initially told first-responding officers she could not identify the shooters; months later she told investigators she recognized Pittman and later testified to that effect before a grand jury in 2008.
A newly elected district attorney’s cold-case team presented the case to three grand juries in 2008–2009; indictments for first-degree murder and carrying a firearm without a license were returned on January 23, 2009.
On the eve of trial the Commonwealth disclosed that Fernanda had fabricated her identification; defendants moved to dismiss the indictments for grand jury impairment due to prosecutorial misconduct.
After an evidentiary hearing the judge granted the motions (without prejudice), finding the prosecutor presented Fernanda’s testimony with reckless disregard for the truth and that her false ID probably influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict.
The Appeals Court agreed the prosecutor’s presentation was deceptive and reckless but reversed the dismissal because the remaining grand jury evidence (confessions, post-shooting conduct, physical evidence linking the defendants to the car) was sufficient to support the indictments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecutor presented false or deceptive evidence to the grand jury with "reckless disregard for the truth"	Commonwealth argued it did not act recklessly and that the video/transcript of the witness interview disclosed the inconsistency	Defendants argued prosecutor omitted the witness’s prior exculpatory statement and presented the ID without vetting credibility, constituting reckless disregard	Court: Judge correctly found presentation was deceptive and showed reckless disregard for the truth (Mayfield prong 1)
Whether the false testimony "probably influenced" the grand jury’s decision to indict	Commonwealth argued the grand jury had other strong inculpatory evidence and the withheld information would not have prevented indictment	Defendants argued the eyewitness ID (the only eyewitness) was critical and likely affected the indictment decision	Court: Judge erred — on review, the record shows other independent inculpatory evidence sufficient such that disclosure likely would not have prevented indictment (Mayfield prong 2 decided against dismissal)
Whether, despite misconduct, indictments should be dismissed	Commonwealth urged reversal of dismissal because remaining evidence established probable cause	Defendants sought dismissal as remedy for impaired grand jury integrity	Held: Dismissal reversed; indictments stand because non-eyewitness evidence sufficed to establish probable cause

Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 398 Mass. 615 (discusses standards for dismissing indictments for false grand jury evidence)
Commonwealth v. O’Dell, 392 Mass. 445 (judicial review of grand jury evidence sufficiency and integrity)
Commonwealth v. McGahee, 393 Mass. 743 (when prosecutors must disclose exculpatory material to a grand jury)
Commonwealth v. Clemmey, 447 Mass. 121 (disclosure required when evidence would greatly undermine an important witness)
Commonwealth v. Silva, 455 Mass. 503 (application of Mayfield factors)
Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160 (sufficiency of grand jury evidence to establish identity and probable cause)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (analogue on reckless disregard standard for false government submissions)