Commonwealth v. Weichell
Citation | 446 Mass. 785,847 N.E.2d 1080 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Frederick WEICHELL. |
Decision Date | 22 May 2006 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Robert C. Cosgrove, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Carol A. Fitzsimmons, Boston, for the defendant.
Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, SOSMAN, & CORDY, JJ.
Although James J. Bulger, Jr. (alias "Whitey"), has long evaded the grasp of pursuing domestic and international law enforcement officers seeking to bring him to account for crimes too numerous and too craven to be summarized here, his malevolent tentacles have once again reached into the Commonwealth and have led to the grant of a motion for a new trial for the defendant, Frederick Weichell, who was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and whose conviction was affirmed by this court in Commonwealth v. Weichell, 390 Mass. 62, 453 N.E.2d 1038 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1032, 104 S.Ct. 1298, 79 L.Ed.2d 698 (1984). The ground for the grant of the new trial motion is encapsulated in the bizarre circumstances that we shall describe below (material worthy of a crime novella). The circumstances persuaded the judge (not the trial judge, who had retired) that the defendant had happened on newly discovered evidence that called the validity of his conviction into question. We disagree with the judge's conclusion and vacate the order granting the defendant a new trial.
1. (a) The background of the case is set forth in our opinion in Commonwealth v. Weichell, supra at 65-67, 453 N.E.2d 1038, as follows:
Id. at 67 n. 4, 453 N.E.2d 1038.
On the issue of motive, the Commonwealth submitted evidence that in the weeks preceding the victim's death, the defendant and his friend, Thomas Barrett, had a series of confrontations, some involving physical altercations and threats, with Shea and Shea's friends, which included the victim, King, and Chuckie Carr. Id. at 64-65, 453 N.E.2d 1038.
We summarized the defendant's case in Commonwealth v. Weichell, supra at 67-68, 453 N.E.2d 1038, as follows:
We then pointed out that, Id. at 68, 453 N.E.2d 1038.
The defendant was represented by his trial counsel in his direct appeal. Id. at 63, 453 N.E.2d 1038. In affirming the defendant's conviction, we rejected his claims that "the trial judge erred in (1) denying his motions in limine to exclude certain evidence relating to motive; (2) granting the Commonwealth's motion in limine to exclude evidence which tended to show that third parties had a motive to commit the crime; (3) refusing to exclude a `mugshot' photograph of the defendant's profile; (4) permitting the Commonwealth to introduce in evidence a composite drawing; (5) allowing the Commonwealth to introduce in evidence an enlarged copy of a photograph of the defendant taken by the Braintree police at the time of his arrest; and (6) excluding photographs of the scene of the crime and the testimony of the photographer who took them." Id. We also denied relief under G.L. c. 278, § 33E. Id. at 64, 453 N.E.2d 1038.
(b) In August, 1991, the defendant, represented by new counsel, filed a motion for a new trial arguing that his trial counsel had deprived him of his right to testify. The trial judge denied the motion without a hearing. A single justice of this court, acting under the gatekeeper provision of G.L. c. 278, § 33E, did not permit the defendant to appeal from this order.
(c) Over a decade later, in January, 2002, the defendant, represented by his current counsel, filed his second motion for a new trial, which is before us. The motion was based on alleged newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The alleged newly discovered evidence consisted of a confession letter authored by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Imbert
...appeal and that this court grants no deference to a motion judge who was not the trial judge. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Weichell, 446 Mass. 785, 799, 847 N.E.2d 1080 (2006). However, "[t]he trial judge upon a motion in writing may grant a new trial at any time if it appears that justice ma......
-
Commonwealth v. Greineder
...491 N.E.2d 246 (1986). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the judge applied the correct standard. See Commonwealth v. Weichell, 446 Mass. 785, 798, 847 N.E.2d 1080 (2006), quoting Commonwealth v. Grace, supra at 305-306, 491 N.E.2d 246 ("A defendant seeking a new trial on the ground of......
-
Commonwealth v. Walker
...fails to prove "some reasonable likelihood that the statement could be true," Commonwealth v. Drew, 397 Mass. at 76; Commonwealth v. Weichell, 446 Mass. 785, 803 (2006). See Commonwealth v. Dew, 443 Mass. 620, (2005).[24] Here again, the defendant, who bears the burden of proving facts suff......
-
Commonwealth v. Drayton
...The defendant “also bears the burden of demonstrating that any newly discovered evidence is admissible.” Commonwealth v. Weichell, 446 Mass. 785, 799, 847 N.E.2d 1080 (2006). In adjudicating a motion for a new trial, the “judge may rule on the issue or issues presented by such motion on the......