A Springfield District Court judge has refused to hold Mihail Lujan without bail on new rape and kidnapping charges, and Hampden District Attorney Anthony Gulluni is publicly objecting. Lujan, 40, of West Springfield, was released on $5,000 bail with conditions after a dangerousness hearing on October 6, 2026. “This decision is deeply disturbing and represents the court’s failure to center public safety and the rights of victims,” Gulluni said in a statement on October 13.
The case drew attention because of Lujan’s history. He was convicted in 2023 of raping a nursing home patient, and that conviction was later thrown out on appeal. Here is what has been reported, and how the Massachusetts law on pretrial detention works.
The new charges
- Prosecutors charged Lujan with rape and kidnapping over an incident on July 16, 2026, according to the district attorney’s office.
- MassLive reported that a homeless woman alleged Lujan sexually assaulted her after offering to let her shower in his motel room. New Bedford Guide reported the motel was in West Springfield.
- Lujan’s lawyer, Peter Alexander Slepchuk, has said the court reviewed the materials and found the allegations “simply not credible,” New Bedford Guide reported.
- The charges are pending. Lujan is presumed innocent.
What happened at the hearing
Prosecutors moved to detain Lujan under G.L. c. 276, § 58A, and separately moved to revoke his bail in the earlier case, the district attorney’s office said. At the October 6 hearing the Commonwealth presented 18 exhibits; the defense presented none.
MassLive reported that Judge Bethzaida Sanabria-Vega reviewed the complainant’s interviews with police and her affidavit for a harassment prevention order under chapter 258E. According to court documents MassLive reviewed, the judge’s hearing notes said: “It is unclear what happened and when after reviewing all the interviews and her 258E affidavit.” She denied detention and set bail at $5,000 with conditions.
The earlier case
- The earlier charge came from a 2013 incident at a West Springfield nursing home, where Lujan worked as a janitor. The patient was elderly, could not move or speak, and had dementia, according to the district attorney’s office.
- After a 2023 trial, Lujan was convicted and sentenced to 10 to 12 years in state prison, MassLive reported.
- The conviction was vacated on appeal in December 2025. The district attorney’s office described the reason as “a technical change in the law regarding the use of substitute expert testimony.” New Bedford Guide reported that the appeals court found testimony from two substitute forensic analysts, who relied on the work of analysts who did not testify, violated Lujan’s right to confront the witnesses against him.
- Lujan was out on bail in that case, which prosecutors say they are still pursuing, when the July incident is alleged to have occurred.
The description matches the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779, which held that when an expert passes along an absent analyst’s statements to support the expert’s own opinion, those statements come in for their truth, and the Confrontation Clause can require the analyst who did the work to testify. Massachusetts appeals courts have vacated other convictions on that ground, including a manslaughter conviction in September. We could not locate the 2025 appellate decision in Lujan’s case, and the outlets that reported it disagree on which appeals court issued it.
How a dangerousness hearing works
Most Massachusetts defendants are not held before trial at all. Section 58A is the exception. We read it at malegislature.gov.
- Who it covers. The Commonwealth can move for detention based on dangerousness only for listed offenses, including any felony that involves the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person.
- The standard is high. A judge may order detention only after finding “by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.” Clear and convincing evidence is a higher standard than in an ordinary civil case, though lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Hearsay is allowed. The usual rules of evidence do not apply, and the judge “shall consider hearsay contained in a police report or the statement of an alleged victim or witness.” That is why the complainant’s interviews and affidavit were before the judge even though she did not testify.
- What the judge weighs. Section 58A(5) lists the factors, including the nature and seriousness of the danger, the circumstances of the offense, the potential penalty, the defendant’s record of convictions, and “whether the person is on bail pending adjudication of a prior charge.”
- The alternative is conditions. If the judge does not detain, the statute requires “the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions” that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance and public safety, such as no contact with the alleged victim, curfews, travel limits or reporting requirements.
- Bail cannot be a backdoor detention. “The judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person.” A judge who finds the standard for detention is not met cannot set bail out of reach to keep someone in jail anyway.
Revoking bail in the earlier case
The separate motion to revoke bail in the 2013 case falls under G.L. c. 276, § 58B. A judge “shall” revoke release if there is probable cause to believe the person committed a crime while on release and the judge finds no conditions will reasonably assure the person will not pose a danger. When there is probable cause that the person committed a qualifying offense while on release, the statute creates “a rebuttable presumption” that no conditions will be enough. The district attorney’s statement does not say what happened to that motion, and it has not been reported.
What happens next
Under § 58A(4), a detention hearing “may be reopened by the judge, at any time before trial,” on motion of either side, if there is information that was not known at the time or a change in circumstances that has “a material bearing” on whether conditions can keep the community safe. Gulluni said his office “will continue to pursue these cases aggressively.” Both cases remain open, and Lujan is presumed innocent in each.
Frequently asked questions
Why was Mihail Lujan released on bail?
A Springfield District Court judge denied the Commonwealth’s request to detain him under G.L. c. 276, section 58A after a dangerousness hearing on October 6, 2026, and set $5,000 bail with conditions. The judge’s notes, as reported by MassLive, said it was “unclear what happened and when” after reviewing the complainant’s interviews and affidavit.
What must prosecutors prove to hold someone without bail in Massachusetts?
For a listed offense, the judge must find by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community. Otherwise the judge must impose the least restrictive conditions that will.
Can a judge set high bail to keep a dangerous defendant in jail?
No. Section 58A says a judge “may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person.” Detention for dangerousness must go through the 58A findings.
Why was Lujan’s 2023 rape conviction overturned?
According to the district attorney and New Bedford Guide, an appeals court found in December 2025 that testimony from substitute forensic analysts, relying on the work of analysts who did not testify, violated his confrontation rights. Prosecutors are pursuing that case again.
Sources: Statement of Hampden District Attorney Anthony D. Gulluni, October 13, 2026, as published by Fall River Reporter; MassLive and New Bedford Guide, October 13, 2026, including the judge’s hearing notes and defense counsel’s statement as reported. G.L. c. 276, sections 58A and 58B, read at malegislature.gov. Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024). Mihail Lujan is presumed innocent of the pending charges. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.