Commonwealth v. Seino
479 Mass. 463
Mass.2018Background
- Victim Daniel DeCosta was found dead behind the Quincy public library on Aug. 3, 2002; head injuries and missing cash. Defendant Carlos Seino was later indicted and convicted of first‑degree felony murder and armed robbery.
- Physical evidence: bloodstains on victim’s shirt and on jeans pocket; DNA from shirt matched Seino alone; DNA from jeans pocket was a mixture matching victim and Seino.
- DNA testing involved three laboratories (State police lab and two Cellmark labs); some testing occurred years after the homicide after Seino’s DNA entered CODIS following an unrelated conviction.
- At trial substitute experts and lab supervisors testified, using charts ("chalks") and case files; a substitute medical examiner relied on an autopsy report and death certificate prepared by another examiner.
- Seino appealed, arguing Confrontation Clause violations (autopsy/death certificate statements, DNA charts, substitute expert testimony), ineffective assistance of counsel, and Brady claims; the SJC affirmed convictions and denied a new trial under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Seino) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admitting substitute medical witness testimony that read autopsy/death certificate statements | Substitute ME may rely on autopsy file; testimony about cause admissible | Testimony quoted testimonial statements in autopsy/death certificate without cross‑examination; Confrontation Clause violation | Error to admit declarative statements from autopsy/death certificate, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Use of DNA charts (chalks) showing raw data generated by nontestifying analysts | Experts may rely on lab data and explain it; charts helped jury understand expert opinions | Charts contained testimonial lab data by nontestifying analysts, violating confrontation | Admission of charts improper but harmless; no substantial likelihood of miscarriage because charts were cumulative and incomprehensible without experts |
| Allowing analyst from different lab (DuPont) to testify to match developed by another lab (Cellmark‑Maryland) | DuPont performed comparison and offered his own opinion; defendant cross‑examined relevant lab analysts | Confrontation Clause violated because developer analyst from Cellmark‑Maryland did not testify about the jeans profile | No error: developer (Cotton) and comparison analyst (DuPont) both testified; defendant had opportunity to cross‑examine |
| Claims of ineffective assistance and Brady violations (failure to object, failing to have defense expert observe testing, lost notes/photograph) | Defense strategic choices (stipulation re: diligence, waiving presence of expert) were reasonable; missing items not shown to be exculpatory or prejudicial | Counsel erred in tactical choices and prosecution lost/withheld exculpatory material | No substantial likelihood of miscarriage; counsel not ineffective under §33E standard; Brady claims not proven (no showing evidence existed or was material) |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial forensic reports without opportunity for cross‑examination)
- McCowen, 458 Mass. 461 (substitute expert may rely on others’ lab work but may not introduce testimonial statements of absent declarant)
- Tassone, 468 Mass. 391 (Confrontation concerns where comparer testifies but original testing analyst does not)
- Reavis, 465 Mass. 875 (permitting substitute medical examiner to rely on autopsy file for opinion)
- Dagraca, 447 Mass. 546 (harmless‑error factors for constitutional error review)
- Barbosa, 457 Mass. 773 (expert reliance on lab work and limits on use of raw data/charts)
- Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (standard for ineffective assistance review; referenced for contrast with §33E review)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)