Poor Defense Effort Results In New Trial

The inadequate work of defense counsel led the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to overturn a murder conviction

There is no dispute that the defendant’s counsel did not prepare for trial in an adequate manner. Among other things, defense counsel did not familiarize himself with the Commonwealth’s discovery file, did not examine the physical evidence collected by police, did not conduct any independent investigation of the case, and did not consider seeking exclusion of any of the Commonwealth’s evidence. Because of counsel’s inadequate preparation, significant pieces of evidence supporting a third-party culprit defense were not introduced at trial. In addition, two in-court identifications of the defendant were admitted that, if objected to, could have been excluded. Although the case against the defendant was a strong one, it was not overwhelming, and we are persuaded that “better work might have accomplished something material for the defense.”

…the defense available to the defendant was aired so inadequately at trial as to create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.

The court remanded for a new trial. (Mike Frisch)