Commonwealth v. Wade (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-111-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11913 COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBERT D. WADE. Plymouth. January 11, 2016. – July 29, 2016. Present: Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.[1] Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Evidence, Scientific test. Practice, Criminal, Postconviction relief, Waiver, Capital case. Statute, Construction. Witness, Privilege. Attorney at Law, Attorney-client relationship. Homicide. Felony-Murder Rule. Rape. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 6, 1993. Following review by this court, 428 Mass. 147 (1998), and 467 Mass. 496 (2014), a motion for deoxyribonucleic acid testing, which had been filed on March 26, 2012, and which was supplemented on April 30, 2014, was heard by Charles J. Hely, J. A request for leave to appeal was allowed by Spina, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk. Janet H. Pumphrey for the defendant. Mary Lee, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Ira L. Gant, Stephanie Roberts Hartung, & David Lewis for Committee for Public Counsel Services Innocence Program & others. Michael D. Ricciuti, Kathleen D. Parker, & Patrick C. McCooe for Boston Bar Association. Martin W. Healy for Massachusetts Bar Association. Stanley L. Donald, pro se. Matthew M. Burke, Dara A. Reppucci, Hillel Nadler, Shivan Sarin, & David Lewis for Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. DUFFLY, J. This case requires us to decide whether the petitioner, Robert Wade, who filed a motion in the Superior Court seeking postconviction testing of biological material pursuant to G. L. c. 278A (“An Act providing access to forensic and scientific analysis”) (act), see St. 2012, c. 38, has satisfied the requirements of the act and therefore is entitled to the testing he seeks. The Legislature enacted G. L. c. 278A to create a process “separate from the trial and any subsequent proceedings challenging an underlying conviction, that permits forensic and scientific analysis of evidence or biological material, the results of which could support a motion for a new trial.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 472 Mass. 120, 121-122 (2015). The Legislature’s stated purpose in enacting G. L. c. 278A was “to remedy the injustice of wrongful convictions of factually innocent persons by allowing access to analyses of biological material with newer forensic and scientific techniques . . . [to] provide a more reliable basis for establishing a factually correct verdict than the evidence available at the time […]
Commonwealth v. Wade (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-045-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11506 COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBERT D. WADE. Plymouth. November 4, 2013. ‑ March 14, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Statute, Construction. Evidence, Presumptions and burden of proof, Exculpatory, Scientific test, Expert opinion. Practice, Criminal, Presumptions and burden of proof, Affidavit, Assistance of counsel, Capital case. Homicide. Felony‑Murder Rule. Rape. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 6, 1993. Following review by this court, 428 Mass. 147 (1998), a motion for deoxyribonucleic acid testing, filed on March 26, 2012, was considered by Raymond P. Veary, Jr., J., and a renewed motion for such testing, filed on October 15, 2012, was considered by Joseph M. Walker, III, J. A request for leave to appeal was allowed by Lenk, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk. Janet Hetherwick Pumphrey for the defendant. Mary E. Lee, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. William M. Taylor, for The Innocence Network, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. DUFFLY, J. On September 8, 1997, a Superior Court jury convicted Robert D. Wade of murder in the first degree on a theory of felony-murder and aggravated rape. On direct appeal, the conviction of murder was affirmed and the conviction of aggravated rape was vacated as duplicative. See Commonwealth v. Wade, 428 Mass. 147, 155 (1998). Since at least December, 2002, Wade has sought unsuccessfully to obtain deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing of the physical evidence that was used to support the expert opinion evidence introduced at trial.[1] In 2012, the Legislature enacted G. L. c. 278A, “An Act providing access to forensic and scientific analysis” (act). See St. 2012, c. 38. The enactment, which occurred in the wake of national recognition that “DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty,” District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 55 (2009), permits access to forensic and scientific evidence on the filing of a motion by an individual who has been convicted of a criminal offense, who consequently has been incarcerated, and who asserts factual innocence. See G. L. c. 278A, § 2. On March 26, 2012, Wade filed a motion and affidavit pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 3 (§ 3 motion). The motion asserts […]