Murray v. United States
821 F. Supp. 2d 458
D. Mass.2011Background
- Murray seeks a writ of coram nobis to challenge his 1984 marijuana-conspiracy conviction on claims of fraud and material nondisclosures by FBI agents.
- In 1994 Murray was convicted on all counts for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and the distribution of marijuana, resulting in a 30-year sentence set to end in 2020.
- The 1984 conviction relied on a 1983 suppression ruling and surrounding surveillance, including a warehouse search not using a warrant and subsequent discovery of marijuana in two vehicles.
- The warrant affidavit for the 1983 search relied on three informants, including Bulger as the third informant, whose identity and reliability Murray attacks as false or misrepresented.
- Murray contends that Bulger provided the warehouse location before April 6, 1983, and that the FBI concealed this and other exculpatory information, undermining probable cause and trial integrity.
- The court applies Franks-type analysis to assess whether false or omitted information affected probable cause, perjury, and Brady obligations, and ultimately denies relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis relief is warranted for fundamental errors | Murray asserts fundamental errors in the 1984 proceedings. | Government contends no fundamental error affected the conviction. | No fundamental error established; petition denied. |
| Materiality of alleged false statements in the warrant affidavit | Falsehoods about warehouse discovery and Bulger's role invalidated probable cause. | Other corroborating observations suffice; materiality not shown. | Alleged falsities not material; probable cause would exist without them. |
| Whether perjured testimony at suppression hearing/trial was material | Agent Cleary's testimony was perjurious regarding foreknowledge and undermined the verdict. | Perjury was immaterial to guilt given strong corroborating evidence. | Not material; did not affect the outcome. |
| Brady disclosure of Bulger's role and prior knowledge | Non-disclosure was a Brady violation that could have changed defense strategy and outcome. | Non-disclosure did not create a reasonable probability of a different result. | No Brady violation; nondisclosure did not alter the result. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (coram nobis as extraordinary remedy for fundamental errors)
- United States v. Sawyer, 239 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2001) (All Writs Act authority and coram nobis standards)
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (All Writs Act authority; extraordinary remedy limitations)
- United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (1979) (coram nobis framework for fundamental errors)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for testing warrant affidavits with false statements)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances probable cause standard)
- Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727 (1984) (informant reliability and Gates-based analysis)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (materiality of prosecutorial misrepresentations and impeachment)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (perjured testimony and due process implications)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (materiality standard for excluded exculpatory evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (due process and discovery of favorable evidence)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality and reasonable probability of different outcome)
- United States v. Hadfield, 918 F.2d 987 (1st Cir. 1990) (Franks framework and material omissions)
- United States v. Moscatiello, 771 F.2d 589 (1st Cir. 1985) (informant reliability and surveillance corroboration in Gates analysis)
- United States v. Connolly, 341 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2003) (Bulger-related FBI informant context)