Commonwealth v. Rosario
477 Mass. 69
Mass.2017Background
- In 1982 a fire in a Lowell multiunit building killed eight people; Rosario was convicted in 1983 of arson and eight counts of second‑degree murder, based largely on confessions he signed after a police interrogation.
- During the interrogation Rosario (a native Spanish speaker) became highly disturbed; three written statements were signed, the most incriminating of which the interpreter says was not interpreted into Spanish before Rosario signed it.
- At trial defense relied on psychiatrists who diagnosed psychosis and challenged voluntariness; jury convicted after being instructed under the humane practice rule.
- In 2012 Rosario moved for a new trial, presenting (at an evidentiary hearing) new expert evidence: psychiatrists who opined Rosario suffered delirium tremens (DTs) during interrogation, and modern fire‑science experts who said the burn patterns were consistent with accidental fire/flashover and not reliably indicative of accelerants.
- The motion judge granted a new trial finding DTs (and coercive interrogation practices) cast real doubt on voluntariness, and that while new fire science alone was insufficient, together with the confession issues it strengthened the case for a new trial.
- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the new trial order on the basis of the totality/confluence‑of‑factors analysis (finding the judge did not abuse discretion), though the court concluded DTs was not strictly "newly discovered."
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Rosario's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether justice requires a new trial based on newly discovered evidence | New fire science alone does not create reasonable doubt; confession voluntariness already litigated | New DTs diagnosis and modern fire science create real doubt about voluntariness and cause of fire | New trial affirmed on confluence/totality grounds; fire science alone insufficient but persuasive when combined with interrogation issues |
| Voluntariness and reliability of Rosario's confession | Confessions were properly admitted and previously litigated; jury instructed on voluntariness | Confessions were involuntary/tainted by DTs, suggestive interrogation tactics, and interpreter failures | Court found the combination of DTs diagnosis, interpreter affidavit, and coercive tactics could have influenced jury; voluntariness in doubt |
| Whether DTs diagnosis is "newly discovered" evidence | DTs was a known diagnosis at time of trial; thus not newly discovered | Diagnosis was not considered at trial and is material to voluntariness | Court held DTs was not "newly discovered" (it was diagnosable then) but nonetheless relevant to the confluence analysis supporting a new trial |
| Standard for granting new trial where multiple factors interact | Finality and ordinary new‑trial rules limit relief absent single dispositive error | A confluence of factors (medical, interpreter, coercive tactics, new fire science) may create substantial risk of miscarriage of justice | Court applied confluence/totality approach (Brescia line) and found judge did not abuse discretion in granting new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brescia, 471 Mass. 381 (mass. 2015) (confluence/totality approach to new‑trial relief)
- Commonwealth v. Ellis, 475 Mass. 459 (mass. 2016) (affirming new trial where combined factors could influence jury)
- Commonwealth v. Epps, 474 Mass. 743 (mass. 2016) (confluence analysis in new‑trial context)
- Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303 (mass. 1986) (standard for newly discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Tavares, 385 Mass. 140 (mass. 1981) (humane practice rule: voluntariness must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before jury may consider confession)
- Commonwealth v. Cowels, 470 Mass. 607 (mass. 2015) (new‑trial principles)
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 438 Mass. 290 (mass. 2002) (new‑trial standard for reasonable doubt about result)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 469 Mass. 447 (mass. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard for overturning new‑trial grants)
- Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423 (mass. 2004) (corroboration requirement for confession evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (mass. 1974) (ineffective assistance standard and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 460 Mass. 199 (mass. 2011) (police tactics that can elicit false confessions)
- Commonwealth v. LeFave, 430 Mass. 169 (mass. 1999) (value of finality of convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Shuman, 445 Mass. 268 (mass. 2005) (newly discovered evidence requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Buck, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 760 (mass. App. Ct. 2005) (counsel's reliance on experts and limits on expectations for further investigation)