Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed an order granting Sean K. Ellis a new trial on murder and armed robbery convictions. The court held that the motion judge did not abuse her discretion in finding that newly discovered evidence concerning police corruption, undisclosed investigative leads, and possible third-party culprits cast real doubt on the justice of the convictions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the motion judge clearly erred in finding that information concerning the Foley allegation and police hotline tips constituted newly discovered evidence.
- Whether direct estoppel barred Ellis from litigating a second motion for a new trial based on evidence of police corruption and investigative misconduct.
- Whether the motion judge abused her discretion in concluding that the newly discovered evidence cast real doubt on the justice of the murder and armed-robbery convictions and warranted a new trial.
Holdings
- The motion judge did not clearly err in finding that the Foley allegation and hotline tips were unknown to the defendant or trial counsel and were not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial.
- Direct estoppel did not bar Ellis's second motion because the material issue presented by the newly discovered evidence had not actually been litigated and determined in the first motion for a new trial.
- The motion judge did not abuse her discretion in ordering a new trial because the newly discovered evidence would probably have been a real factor in the jury's deliberations and cast real doubt on the justice of the murder and armed-robbery convictions.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the judge did not abuse her discretion in ordering a new trial.” (475 Mass. at 459)
“For direct estoppel to apply, however, "the Commonwealth must show that the issues raised in the defendant's rule 30 (b) motion were actually litigated and determined on the defendant's original motion."” (475 Mass. at 710-711)
“When we consider the newly discovered evidence together with the totality of the evidence presented at trial, we conclude that, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the judge did not abuse her discretion in determining that the newly discovered evidence "would have been a real factor in the jury's deliberations" and that a new trial is required for justice to be done.” (475 Mass. at 733)
Factual background
Ellis was convicted of murdering Boston police Detective John Mulligan and of armed robbery after evidence placed Ellis near the Walgreens where Mulligan was shot and showed that Ellis possessed and helped dispose of Mulligan's service weapon and the murder weapon. The prosecution's case also relied substantially on an eyewitness identification obtained during a photographic-array procedure involving Detectives Walter Robinson and Kenneth Acerra. Years after trial, documentary evidence revealed that Mulligan had allegedly participated in criminal misconduct with detectives involved in the investigation, that police failed to pursue multiple leads implicating possible third-party culprits, and that the defense may not have received the relevant reports before trial.
Procedural history
A jury found Ellis guilty of murder in the first degree and armed robbery in 1995, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions and denial of his first motion for a new trial in 2000. Ellis filed a second motion for a new trial in 2013 based on newly discovered evidence concerning police corruption, investigative failures, and possible third-party culprits. A Superior Court judge allowed the motion, concluding that the evidence cast real doubt on the justice of the convictions. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order as to the murder and armed-robbery indictments.