Commonwealth v. Weichell

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Evidence

EvidenceNew trialNewly discovered evidenceHearsayStatement against penal interestnewly discovered evidencereasonable diligencemotion for new trial

Facts

The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and the Commonwealth's trial theory included Barrett as a possible participant. In 1982, the defendant's mother received a letter from Barrett stating that Barrett, not the defendant, had killed the victim, but the defendant testified that although he learned of the letter's existence around that time, he chose not to learn its contents because Bulger had threatened him not to mention Barrett. At an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's second new trial motion, the judge also heard testimony from Sherry Robb that Barrett had told her in California that the defendant was doing time for something Barrett had done and that Barrett had killed someone. The judge treated both the letter and Robb's testimony as newly discovered evidence and ruled them admissible as statements against penal interest.

Issue

Whether Barrett's confession letter and alleged oral confessions to Robb qualified as newly discovered evidence supporting a new trial, and whether those hearsay statements were admissible under the declaration-against-penal-interest exception. More specifically, the court had to decide whether the defendant's fear of Bulger excused reasonable diligence and whether Barrett's statements were sufficiently corroborated to be trustworthy.

Rule

To obtain a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, a defendant must prove that the evidence was unknown to the defendant or counsel and not reasonably discoverable through reasonable diligence at the time of trial or an earlier new trial motion, that the evidence is material, credible, and admissible, and that it casts real doubt on the justice of the conviction by probably being a real factor in the jury's deliberations. For an exculpatory hearsay statement against penal interest to be admissible, the declarant must be unavailable, the statement must genuinely tend to subject the declarant to criminal liability such that a reasonable person would not make it unless true, and the statement must be corroborated by circumstances clearly indicating its trustworthiness.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Damon Cruz was convicted of armed robbery in 2005. Before trial, his sister told him that Damon’s friend, Eric Nolan, had mailed her a letter saying Damon was innocent, but Damon refused to hear more because a local gang leader had warned him not to involve Eric. In 2024, Damon moves for a new trial based on the letter’s contents, which he says he first learned after his sister died.

Is the letter most likely newly discovered evidence?

Explanation. A defendant must show the evidence was unknown and not reasonably discoverable through reasonable diligence at trial or at the time of an earlier new-trial motion. Under the majority opinion, fear or intimidation does not create a general coercion exception to diligence where the defendant knew of the source and chose not to pursue it. Because Damon knew the letter existed and declined to learn its contents, it is not newly discovered. (Derived from Commonwealth v. Weichell (n.d.).)