Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed Anthony Barry's consolidated direct appeal and appeals from the denial of two motions for a new trial arising from first-degree murder convictions. The court addressed sufficiency of the evidence, alleged Brady violations, newly discovered evidence, DNA expert testimony and confrontation rights, courtroom closure, discovery violations, and disclosure of a confidential informant. The court affirmed the convictions and the denials of the motions for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Barry and Cahill each proximately caused McCormack's death when two separate gunshot wounds were independently lethal.
- Whether the Commonwealth's nondisclosure of medical records and police reports violated Brady v. Maryland or otherwise required a new trial.
- Whether newly discovered evidence, including third-party-culprit information, witness affidavits, recantation evidence, and alleged witness intimidation, warranted a new trial.
- Whether the second motion judge abused his discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing.
- Whether the DNA expert's testimony violated the defendants' confrontation rights or rested on unreliable testing.
- Whether pretrial nondisclosure of medical evidence implicated the confrontation clause.
- Whether the closure of portions of jury selection violated the right to a public trial.
- Whether the confidential informant's identity should have been disclosed.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to convict both defendants of murder because each defendant's shooting was a proximate cause of McCormack's death, even though the medical examiner could not identify which wound caused death first.
- The denial of the first motion for a new trial was proper because the undisclosed hospital records would not have created a substantial risk that the jury would have reached a different verdict.
- The second motion judge did not abuse his discretion by deciding the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- The Montana, ATF, and Orlando reports did not establish a Brady violation or otherwise warrant a new trial.
- The Whitson affidavit, Brittany Cahill affidavit, evidence concerning an unrelated murder, and alleged witness intimidation did not warrant a new trial.
- Cahill's unpreserved public-trial claims did not warrant a new trial because they were procedurally waived and did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
- The DNA expert was not a substitute expert, and his testimony did not violate the defendants' confrontation rights.
- The use of eight DNA loci did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
- The confrontation clauses of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Sixth Amendment do not apply to pretrial discovery of medical evidence.
- The trial judge properly denied the motion to disclose the confidential informant's identity.
Key quotations
“A cause is concurrent if it was operative at the moment of death and acted with another cause to produce the death.” (481 Mass. at 418)
“The informant privilege "may be asserted where the Commonwealth otherwise would be required to provide an informant's identity to a defendant as part of its discovery obligations."” (481 Mass. at 439)
Factual background
Shortly after midnight on April 17, 1999, Anthony Barry and Brian Cahill approached a vehicle outside a Malden bar as Kevin McCormack and others were preparing to leave. Cahill fired an Uzi-type weapon into the passenger side of the vehicle, while Barry fired a handgun into McCormack's head; McCormack died from multiple gunshot wounds, and two other occupants were wounded. A witness identified Barry and Cahill, and police recovered the .40-caliber pistol used to shoot McCormack in the head, an Uzi, clothing and gloves associated with the attack, and DNA evidence linking Cahill to a Nomex hood.
Procedural history
Indictments were returned in the Superior Court Department on July 23, 1999. After trial before Judge Robert A. Barton, Barry and Cahill were convicted of murder in the first degree and related offenses. Their first motion for a new trial, filed in 2002, was denied after an evidentiary hearing; their second motion, filed in 2014, was denied after a nonevidentiary hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments and the orders denying new trials.