128 N.E.3d 29
Mass.2019Background
- April 25, 2009: Shots fired into an outdoor baby shower in Brockton; multiple injured, one killed. Defendant convicted of first‑degree murder (deliberate premeditation) and other charges; conviction appealed and motion for new trial denied below.
- Central factual dispute concerned where the defendant was "picked up" the night of the shooting; Commonwealth sought to place him near a Dunkin' Donuts five minutes from the scene where three people were seen fleeing into an adjacent yard.
- Trooper Clements testified at trial that the defendant told police in two interviews he was picked up "in the area of Dunkin' Donuts;" trial exhibits (police reports and the transcript of the second interview) showed the defendant did not say that and consistently denied being picked up there.
- Defense impeached the trooper on his first‑interview testimony; the trooper corrected himself at trial to align with his police report. The trooper’s testimony about the second interview—that the defendant initially said he was picked up at Dunkin' Donuts and then changed his story—was false and went uncorrected at trial.
- The prosecutor relied on the false testimony in closing argument to emphasize the defendant’s presence near the scene; presence at or near the scene was a cornerstone of the Commonwealth’s case.
- Trial judge denied the new‑trial motion; the Supreme Judicial Court concluded the prosecutor should have known of the falsity from transcripts provided and that failure to correct freely admitted false testimony created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth violated its obligation by eliciting or failing to correct false testimony about where the defendant said he was picked up | Any inconsistency was corrected on cross‑examination for the first interview and defense had access to transcripts; no prosecutorial misconduct warranting reversal | Trooper falsely testified about the second interview placing defendant at Dunkin' Donuts; prosecutor knew or should have known from transcripts and failed to correct; false testimony was central and prejudicial | Reversed: prosecutor erred in failing to correct blatantly false testimony about the second interview; created substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice |
| Whether defendant's access to transcripts or evidence at trial absolves prosecutor of duty to correct false testimony | Defendant had the materials; defense strategy decisions bars relief when defendant knew of falsity | Even if defense could have discovered the falsity, prosecutors retain independent duty to correct blatantly false, central testimony | Rejected Commonwealth's reliance on defendant's access; prosecutor’s duty persists where testimony is blatantly false and central |
| Whether false testimony about absence of other confessions by others warranted reversal | Trooper's testimony about lack of other confessions was permissible; inconsistencies with reports do not always imply Commonwealth knew testimony was false | Police reports indicated other confessions; prosecutor responsible for reports and should not have elicited or failed to correct false testimony | Court found prosecutor erroneously elicited and failed to correct false testimony about other confessions, but relied on the Dunkin' Donuts error to order retrial |
| Whether the cumulative evidence was strong enough to cure the prejudicial error | Evidence of ballistics, sightings, confessions, and defendant’s admissions supported conviction despite error | False testimony placed defendant at critical location and likely influenced jury; error not harmless given the centrality of location evidence | Error was not harmless; substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice warranted vacatur and remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecution may not present false testimony or fail to correct it)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor responsible for disclosing and correcting known false testimony)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (prosecutor’s duty to seek justice, not merely victory)
- Commonwealth v. Burgos, 462 Mass. 53 (2012) (review standards for prosecutorial failure to correct false testimony)
- Commonwealth v. DiPadova, 460 Mass. 424 (2011) (prejudice analysis when false testimony affects central trial issues)
- Commonwealth v. Woollam, 478 Mass. 493 (2017) (standard of review for uncorrected false testimony claims)
- Sivak v. Hardison, 658 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2011) (defendant’s knowledge of falsity does not absolve prosecutor’s duty to correct)
- United States v. Stein, 846 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2017) (government’s failure to correct materially false testimony can violate due process)
- United States v. Chavez, 894 F.3d 593 (4th Cir.) (2018) (corrections by a witness at trial may mitigate impact of false testimony)