Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Richard Shuman’s convictions for the premeditated murders of two business associates and affirmed the denial of his motion for a new trial. The court held that evidence concerning Zoloft-related akathisia was not newly discovered, that trial counsel’s presentation of an insanity defense was not ineffective assistance, and that the motion judge did not abuse her discretion by ruling without an evidentiary hearing. The court also declined to grant relief under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 278, section 33E.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether evidence concerning a connection between Zoloft, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, akathisia, and violent behavior qualified as newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present a distinct Zoloft-induced-akathisia defense.
- Whether the motion judge abused her discretion by denying the new-trial motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- Whether the convictions should be reversed or a new trial ordered under the Supreme Judicial Court's extraordinary authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Holdings
- The posttrial evidence concerning Zoloft-induced akathisia did not warrant a new trial because the relevant connection between SSRIs and agitation or violent behavior was reasonably discoverable before trial, and the posttrial expert opinion was not materially different from the defense expert testimony presented at trial.
- Trial counsel was not ineffective for presenting an insanity defense involving depression and medication-related aggression rather than a separately labeled Zoloft-induced-akathisia defense.
- The motion judge did not abuse her discretion by denying the new-trial motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- After reviewing the entire record, the court found no basis to reverse the first-degree murder convictions, order a new trial, or direct entry of a verdict of a lesser degree of guilt.
Key quotations
“The mere addition of further information to the preexisting debate does not amount to “newly discovered evidence” for the purposes of a new trial motion.” (445 Mass. at 275)
“Presenting a similar but slightly different version of an insanity defense does not fall below the ordinary lawyer’s level of competence.” (445 Mass. at 278)
“The defendant received a fair trial, and the jury’s verdicts are consistent with the evidence.” (445 Mass. at 279)
Factual background
On August 5, 1997, Shuman shot and killed his business associates Jack Badler and Howard Librot at their offices in Stoughton. The shootings followed escalating disputes concerning Shuman's financially troubled printing business and Badler's refusal to process Foremost Printers' payroll unless Shuman signed a liability release. Shuman's defense at trial was lack of criminal responsibility based on major depression with psychotic features, exacerbated by diabetes and medication, including Zoloft and Elavil. Posttrial experts characterized his condition as Zoloft-induced akathisia, but the court found that this theory substantially overlapped with the psychiatric and medication-related evidence presented at trial.
Procedural history
A Superior Court jury found Shuman guilty of the premeditated murders of Jack Badler and Howard Librot on October 26, 1999. Shuman later moved for a new trial, asserting that posttrial evidence concerning Zoloft-induced akathisia cast substantial doubt on the convictions and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present that evidence. The Superior Court judge, who had presided over the trial, denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions and the order denying a new trial after reviewing the entire record under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.