Matthew Farwell’s lawyers told the federal court on Thursday, November 12, 2026, that they plan to ask for a new trial and for a judgment of acquittal, two days after a jury convicted the former Stoughton police detective in the deaths of Sandra Birchmore and her unborn child, NBC10 Boston and WCVB reported. First, they asked for more time.
The docket also shows that Chief U.S. District Judge Denise Casper has set a date when the jurors’ names can be released to anyone who asks in writing: no earlier than November 17. We read both entries on the court docket. Here is what each one says and what comes next.
The motion: 30 days after the transcripts
- What was filed. Docket entry 405, filed November 12 by defense lawyer Kimberly Stevens, is a “Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to 30 Days Post Transcripts to File Motions under Rule 29, 33 and for Extra Pages.”
- Why. The motion cites the “complex and substantial” issues the defense plans to raise as the reason for 30 days from delivery of the final trial transcripts, NBC10 reported.
- No objection. Defense lawyers Joanne Daley and Kimberly Stevens said prosecutors did not object, NBC10 reported. The docket entry is labeled a consent motion.
- Two motions coming. One would try to throw out the guilty verdict and the other would ask for an entirely new trial, WCVB reported.
- Not yet ruled on. As of Thursday night, the docket did not show a ruling on the request.
What Rules 29 and 33 do
We read the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure at Cornell’s Legal Information Institute.
| Rule | What it asks | Normal deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 29, judgment of acquittal | That the judge enter an acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to convict | Within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the jury is discharged, whichever is later |
| Rule 33, new trial | That the judge vacate the judgment and grant a new trial “if the interest of justice so requires” | Within 14 days after the verdict, for grounds other than newly discovered evidence |
Fourteen days from the November 10 verdict would be November 24. Rule 45(b)(1) lets the court extend a deadline “for good cause” on a motion “made before the originally prescribed or previously extended time expires.” The defense filed well before that date. Casper denied a defense motion for acquittal before closing arguments, so the Rule 29 motion would be a renewed request.
If the judge agrees, the deadline would depend on when the final transcripts of the 24-day trial are delivered. The docket’s procedural order sets sentencing for 2 p.m. that day in Courtroom 10, in person only.
The jurors’ names: no earlier than November 17
On November 10, after the verdict, Casper entered an order responding to a November 5 media inquiry seeking the jurors’ identities (docket entry 403). We read the order in full.
- Why names were withheld. Before trial, Casper found it necessary to withhold jurors’ names and addresses “to minimize the risk that other individuals would expose jurors to extra-judicial information or influences,” the order says. That concern ended with the verdict.
- The rule. Under the District of Massachusetts Jury Plan, once a jury is discharged, “the names and the cities or towns of the petit jurors empaneled in a particular case may be disclosed to a requesting party upon written request,” and the court “shall grant such a request” unless it makes specific findings that release should be delayed.
- The balance. Each juror, “a private citizen who did nothing more than answer the call of jury service, retains a legitimate interest in having their privacy protected,” Casper wrote, and that interest must be balanced against the media’s First Amendment right of access.
- The delay. Citing “the jurors’ length of service in this trial, the sacrifice they have made” and their need for “a brief time to recover,” Casper ordered a seven-day delay. The court will provide names and cities or towns “to a requesting party upon written request no earlier than November 17, 2026.”
Casper relied in part on In re Globe Newspaper Co., 920 F.2d 88 (1st Cir. 1990), and United States v. Chin, 913 F.3d 251 (1st Cir. 2019), both of which we verified on CourtListener. Releasing a name to a requester does not mean a juror has to talk. No juror has spoken publicly so far.
Former deputy chief: “I asked for an investigative grand jury”
Also Thursday, Brian Holmes, Stoughton’s former deputy police chief and now the police chief in Kingston, told WCVB he investigated Farwell while running Stoughton’s internal affairs and took the information to Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey and the State Police. When no immediate action was taken, he said, he took his findings to the FBI.
“I asked for an investigative grand jury and I asked for a special prosecutor to be assigned,” Holmes told WCVB. “It never happened.” He said he gave all the evidence he had to the FBI in 2022, according to WCVB. U.S. Attorney Leah Foley credited Holmes after the verdict with helping start the federal investigation, as we reported. The Norfolk DA’s office has said its ability to prosecute was constrained by the medical examiner’s original suicide finding. Incoming DA Djuna Perkins has said she will open a grand jury investigation after she takes office in January, as we reported.
What happens next
- The extension. Casper decides whether to allow 30 days after transcripts.
- November 17. The earliest date the court will provide jurors’ names and towns on written request.
- Post-trial motions. Rule 29 and Rule 33 motions, on whatever schedule the court sets.
- February 3, 2027. Sentencing at 2 p.m. Farwell was remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal after the verdict, the docket shows.
Frequently asked questions
Is Matthew Farwell getting a new trial?
Not now. His lawyers said they plan to move for a new trial and for acquittal, and asked for 30 days after final transcripts to file. The judge has not ruled on those motions, which have not been filed yet.
When will the Farwell jurors’ names be released?
The court will provide the jurors’ names and cities or towns to a requesting party on written request no earlier than November 17, 2026, under Judge Casper’s November 10 order.
What is a Rule 29 motion?
A request that the judge enter a judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to convict. After a guilty verdict it is normally due within 14 days.
When is Farwell’s sentencing?
February 3, 2027, at 2 p.m. before Chief Judge Denise Casper, according to the court’s procedural order.
Sources: United States v. Farwell, No. 1:24-cr-10259-DJC (D. Mass.), docket entries 400, 402, 403 and 405, read on CourtListener’s RECAP archive. NBC10 Boston and WCVB, November 12, 2026. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29, 33 and 45, read at Cornell’s Legal Information Institute. In re Globe Newspaper Co., 920 F.2d 88, and United States v. Chin, 913 F.3d 251, verified on CourtListener. General information, not legal advice.