Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 462 Mass. 827

In fall 2001, a Harvard Square gang led by Ismael, Parker, and Bamford formed a Crips set and recruited victim Io Nachtwey, among others, for gang missions.
A plan was formed to murder Nachtwey after a disagreement about previous missions; a “green light” cue preceded the stabbing.
On November 3, 2001, Nachtwey was walked along railroad tracks, restrained, and Davenport stabbed her while others held and restrained her.
Luis, Ismael, Parker, White, Alleyne, Bamford, and Nachtwey were involved in the events leading to Nachtwey’s death; Davenport, the nonmember, participated with others.
White and Alleyne testified under cooperation agreements; Parker’s statement was admitted with Bruton-related concerns.
The Commonwealth trial combined five defendants; each was convicted of first-degree murder or related charges; severance and evidentiary challenges followed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duress as a defense to murder	Davenport seeks a duress defense to all murder theories.	Davenport asserts duress should negate murder liability.	Duress not a defense to intentional murder under Massachusetts common law.
Severance of joint trial	Ismael and Luis argue joint trial prejudicial due to mutually antagonistic defenses.	Severance is required when defenses are mutually antagonistic and irreconcilable.	No abuse of discretion; joinder proper; evidence supported guilt without Davenport’s duress defense.
CORI peremptory challenge timing	Prosecutor’s CORI checks should have preceded juror satisfaction declaration.	Error in peremptory challenge after satisfaction without CORI reservation.	Single justice order to grant peremptory challenge affirmed; no substantial miscarriage.
Bruton issue regarding Parker's statement	Luis argues Parker’s statement violated Bruton by implicating others.	Adaptor: statement should be limited to Parker; no direct reference to Luis.	No Bruton violation; redaction and context allowed; no reversible error.
Bloodstain pattern evidence admissibility	Challenge to reliability and Lanigan hearing requirement.	Bloodstain analysis is generally accepted and properly admitted.	No abuse of discretion; Pytou Heang standard satisfied; evidence admissible; no Lanigan hearing required.

Commonwealth v. Robinson, 382 Mass. 189 (Mass. 1981) (duress and coercion principles supporting defense analysis)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (codefendant confession implicating another violates confrontation rights)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (redacted confessions and Bruton implications in joint trials)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1998) (redacted confessions still implicating codefendants when text directly refers to them)
Commonwealth v. Hampton, 457 Mass. 152 (Mass. 2010) (prosecutor CORI check authority before jurors are sworn; procedures clarified)
Commonwealth v. Stewart, 450 Mass. 25 (Mass. 2007) (severance analysis; defenses need not compel severance absent compelling prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Sinnott, 399 Mass. 863 (Mass. 1987) (severance framework balancing prejudice and joint trial efficiency)
Commonwealth v. Cordeiro, 401 Mass. 843 (Mass. 1988) (independence of witnesses/testimony for severance analysis)
Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (Mass. 1994) (Lanigan standard for scientific evidence admissibility and hearing when needed)
Commonwealth v. Powell, 450 Mass. 229 (Mass. 2007) (bloodstain pattern analysis generally accepted; reliability weighed not excluded)
Commonwealth v. Pytou Heang, 458 Mass. 827 (Mass. 2011) (standard for admitting expert bloodstain testimony without pretrial Lanigan hearing)