Commonwealth v. Jessup, 471 Mass. 121

In May 2010 a man (Jonathan Santiago) was shot and killed while seated in his car outside a Springfield bar; police recovered a fired 9mm casing but no weapon. Two defendants were tried together; Jessup was convicted of first‑degree felony murder (predicate: attempted armed robbery) and firearms offenses; co‑defendant Stovall was acquitted.
Key eyewitnesses (Cooke, Chase, Harris) placed two light‑skinned Black males with braids and dark clothing at the vehicle; identifications of Jessup were made from multiple photo arrays and an in‑person sighting, but no fingerprints tied Jessup to the car.
After arrest in Virginia, Jessup and his girlfriend were detained pending extradition at a local jail that barred inmate‑to‑inmate correspondence without prior approval; jail personnel seized a letter Jessup wrote to his girlfriend and admitted redacted portions at trial as admissions/consciousness of guilt.
Jessup moved to suppress the letter on First Amendment grounds; the motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing where jail staff testified the letter was contraband under the facility policy and was opened and retained per procedure.
At trial Jessup did not testify and defended on misidentification; he appealed, raising (1) suppression error, (2) failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter (wanton/reckless), and (3) ineffective assistance for counsel not requesting that instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Jessup)	Held
1) Motion to suppress letter seized in Virginia jail	Jail policy banning inmate‑to‑inmate correspondence is a neutral, security‑based rule reasonably related to penological interests; seizure and review were permissible	Seizure/reading of outgoing letter violated First Amendment; letter was not contraband and outgoing mail merits greater protection	Denied. Court applied Turner deferential test and held the policy reasonable and neutral; letter was contraband and seizure lawful
2) Failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter (wanton/reckless)	N/A	Judge should have instructed because evidence (car movement, possible accidental discharge) could support manslaughter rather than murder	Rejected. No view of evidence supported manslaughter; felony‑murder rule applied and evidence supported intent to commit robbery (including letter)
3) Ineffective assistance for not requesting manslaughter instruction	N/A	Counsel deficient for failing to request instruction	Rejected. Since instruction was not warranted, counsel’s omission was not prejudicial or deficient
4) Request for relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E	N/A	Conviction is unjust; requests exercise of appellate equity power	Denied. Court found no basis to grant §33E relief

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (recognizes deferential, reasonable‑relationship standard for prison regulations that impinge on inmates' constitutional rights)
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (addresses constitutionality of censoring prisoner mail and sets initial framework for review)
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (discusses application of Turner factors and neutrality in prison mail cases)
Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (upholds prison regulations aimed at preserving security, cited for penological interests)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 390 Mass. 144 (explains application of the felony‑murder rule and that accidental discharge does not negate felony‑murder)
Commonwealth v. Sires, 413 Mass. 292 (requires manslaughter instruction when any view of evidence supports it)
Massachusetts Prisoners Ass'n Political Action Comm. v. Acting Governor, 435 Mass. 811 (Massachusetts adoption of Turner standard for prison regulations)
Commonwealth v. Isaiah I., 448 Mass. 334 (standard for reviewing subsidiary factual findings on suppression motions)