Commonwealth v. Weichell

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviews the grant of a defendant’s second motion for a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence, including a purported confession letter and statements by another individual. The court holds that the defendant failed to establish that the evidence was not reasonably discoverable earlier and rejects the motion judge’s creation of a fear- or coercion-based exception to the reasonable-diligence requirement. The order granting a new trial is vacated.

Holdings

1. Fear of intimidation and threats, without a recognized psychological syndrome or other mental impairment preventing the defendant from pursuing potentially exculpatory evidence, does not create an exception to the requirement that newly discovered evidence could not reasonably have been discovered earlier.
2. The purported confession letter and Barrett's alleged statements to Robb were not newly discovered evidence because the defendant or his counsel could reasonably have discovered them before the defendant's first motion for a new trial.
3. Barrett's statements were inadmissible because, although the declarant was unavailable and the statements were sufficiently against penal interest, they were not corroborated by circumstances clearly indicating their trustworthiness.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the purported confession letter and alleged verbal confessions were newly discovered evidence when the defendant or counsel could have uncovered them through reasonable diligence before trial or before the first motion for a new trial.
2. Whether fear, coercion, or witness intimidation created an exception to the reasonable-diligence requirement for newly discovered evidence.
3. Whether Barrett's purported statements satisfied the corroboration requirement for admission as statements against penal interest.
4. Whether the motion judge properly granted a new trial based on the alleged newly discovered evidence.

Disposition

vacated