494 Mass. 525
Mass.2024Background
- In 1974, Peter Sulfaro was murdered during a robbery of his shoe repair shop in Boston; his son, Paul Sulfaro, was the sole eyewitness.
- Raymond Gaines, along with Jerry Funderberg and Robert Anderson, was convicted in 1976 of first-degree murder and armed robbery based on Sulfaro’s identification, testimony from David Bass and others, and Gaines’ alleged confession.
- No physical evidence connected Gaines to the crime scene; the conviction relied heavily on the eyewitness identification and testimonial evidence.
- Over decades, Gaines sought postconviction relief. His fourth motion for a new trial cited newly discovered scientific evidence undermining eyewitness testimony, undisclosed exculpatory evidence, and a recantation by a material witness.
- The Superior Court granted Gaines a new trial, finding two main justifications: (1) modern eyewitness identification science casting doubt on the original evidence, and (2) undisclosed Brady material about witness credibility and investigative procedures.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the case came before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on the Commonwealth’s appeal of the new trial order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new scientific research on eyewitness identification constitutes newly discovered evidence | Any weaknesses in identification were already aired at trial | New science makes clear prior identification was unreliable; not available at trial | Yes, it is newly discovered evidence and material to the defense |
| Whether nondisclosure of exculpatory Brady evidence (witness’s arrest, suggestive procedures) was prejudicial | Nondisclosures were not exculpatory or prejudicial given other evidence | Nondisclosures prejudiced ability to challenge key witnesses and police procedures | Nondisclosure of key items prejudiced defense; new trial warranted |
| Whether a postconviction witness recantation (Bass affidavit) must be disclosed and is credible | Recantation is not credible and came posttrial so doesn’t trigger disclosure | Recantation is newly discovered, facially credible, and nondisclosure prejudiced defense | Not credible or prejudicial, but, prospectively, all recantations must be disclosed under ethical rules |
| Whether the motion judge abused discretion in granting new trial | Judge misweighed evidence and improperly found prejudice | Judge properly assessed the new evidence and prejudice to defense | No abuse of discretion; new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Epps, 474 Mass. 743 (Mass. 2016) (new scientific evidence can warrant a new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 473 Mass. 594 (Mass. 2016) (standards for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Gomes, 470 Mass. 352 (Mass. 2015) (modern standards on reliability of eyewitness identification)
- Commonwealth v. Tucceri, 412 Mass. 401 (Mass. 1992) (prejudice from nondisclosed exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Funderberg, 374 Mass. 577 (Mass. 1978) (direct appeal affirming original conviction; sets context for revisit)