Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that Shawn Drumgold was eligible to pursue a claim under the Massachusetts Erroneous Convictions Law because the grounds for vacating his conviction and granting a new trial rested on facts probative of his innocence. The court affirmed denial of the Commonwealth's summary judgment motion and directed entry of partial summary judgment for Drumgold on eligibility, while remanding for trial on whether he could prove actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. Two justices dissented.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Drumgold was eligible to bring an action under G. L. c. 258D, § 1 (B) (ii), where his conviction was vacated on grounds involving newly discovered evidence undermining the reliability of a critical identification witness and undisclosed exculpatory evidence concerning another significant witness.
- Whether the Superior Court properly denied the Commonwealth's motion for summary judgment on Drumgold's statutory eligibility.
- Whether partial summary judgment should be entered against the Commonwealth on the eligibility issue.
Holdings
- A claimant satisfies the eligibility requirement of G. L. c. 258D, § 1 (B) (ii), when the grounds for judicial relief rest upon facts and circumstances probative of the proposition that the claimant did not commit the crime. The judge granting relief need not make a specific finding that the claimant is likely innocent.
- The Commonwealth was not entitled to summary judgment on Drumgold's eligibility to sue under G. L. c. 258D, and Drumgold was entitled to partial summary judgment establishing that eligibility.
Key quotations
“At its heart, the motion for a new trial was allowed because the fact finder was forestalled from making a fully informed decision as to the defendant's guilt or innocence because of the absence of critical evidence that would have cast real doubt on the reliability of the Commonwealth's witnesses, and might well have changed the jury's credibility calculation when weighing their testimony against that of the defendant and the witnesses called on his behalf.” (458 Mass. at 378)
“The case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (458 Mass. at 379)
Factual background
Drumgold was convicted of first-degree murder based principally on eyewitness testimony identifying him as one of masked shooters, while he asserted misidentification and an alibi. After he filed a third motion for a new trial, evidence emerged that a critical identification witness had suffered brain cancer and related symptoms when she identified and testified against him, and that another significant witness had received undisclosed promises, inducements, and benefits from law enforcement. The Commonwealth conceded that Drumgold had not received a fair trial, moved to vacate the conviction and grant a new trial, and later entered a nolle prosequi.
Procedural history
Drumgold was convicted of murder in the first degree in 1989, and this court affirmed the conviction in 1996. In 2003, following an evidentiary hearing on Drumgold's third motion for a new trial, the Superior Court allowed the Commonwealth's motion to vacate the conviction and grant a new trial; the Commonwealth then entered a nolle prosequi. Drumgold brought an action under G. L. c. 258D, and the Superior Court denied the Commonwealth's summary judgment motion challenging his statutory eligibility. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that denial, ordered partial summary judgment against the Commonwealth on eligibility, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
Remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including entry of partial summary judgment against the Commonwealth on Drumgold's eligibility and continuation of the action toward trial on actual innocence.