Commonwealth v. Johnson
483 N.E.2d 838, 1985 Mass. App. LEXIS 1995, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 28 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal conviction must be vacated when the cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct—including failure to disclose inducements offered to a key witness, improper impeachment of defense witnesses, and vouching for a witness's credibility—combined with ineffective assistance of counsel, deprives the defendant of a fair trial.
Facts:
- On November 24, 1981, Donald Brooks drove Paulette Graham to the home of Willie Johnson, with whom Graham was taking refuge after leaving Brooks.
- Johnson emerged from his house, struck Brooks in the arm with a two-by-four, re-entered the house, and then reappeared brandishing a gun with a silencer.
- Johnson then threatened to kill Brooks if Brooks reported him to the police.
- At the time, Graham was facing seven separate criminal charges, including credit card fraud, larceny, and witness intimidation.
- On January 27, 1982, Graham provided a statement to Assistant District Attorney Henry Kigali, recanting prior testimony exculpating Johnson.
- In her statement, Graham claimed Johnson had orchestrated a conspiracy for her, his wife, and his son to lie about the gun to protect him.
- On the same day she gave her statement, Graham received highly favorable dispositions on her pending criminal charges, including probation and dismissals.
- Graham later testified at a separate perjury trial that she had, in fact, received a 'deal' from the District Attorney's office in exchange for her testimony.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts procured indictments against Willie Johnson in Superior Court for assault, threats, and firearms offenses.
- Based on the same incident, the state successfully moved in Superior Court to revoke Johnson's probation from a prior conviction, and he was incarcerated.
- Johnson was subsequently tried by a jury in Superior Court in Hampden County on the new indictments.
- The jury returned verdicts of guilty on charges of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, illegal possession of a gun, and receiving a firearm with an altered number, and not guilty on other charges.
- Johnson (appellant) appealed his convictions to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a combination of prosecutorial misconduct, including the failure to disclose an inducement to a key witness and improper vouching for that witness's credibility, coupled with ineffective assistance of counsel, violate a defendant's right to a fair trial, requiring a new trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaplan, J.
Yes. The convictions must be vacated because the cumulative effect of prosecutorial overreaching and other faults compromised the proceedings and deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The court identified several key errors. First, the prosecution improperly used pending perjury indictments against defense witnesses to impeach their credibility, which is impermissible as only prior convictions can be used for impeachment. Second, the prosecution failed to disclose the 'quid pro quo' arrangement with its key witness, Paulette Graham, where she gave a statement in exchange for a prompt and lenient disposition of her own criminal charges. This failure was compounded by the prosecutor allowing Graham to testify falsely that she had received no promises. Third, the prosecutor improperly vouched for Graham's credibility during closing arguments, stating that 'the Commonwealth stood behind her and believed her.' Finally, defense counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Graham with her significant out-of-state criminal record and for failing to probe the nature of her arrangement with the prosecution. The combination of these errors requires a new trial where a jury can hear the complete story.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the prosecution's affirmative duty to disclose any and all agreements or inducements made with a witness, regardless of whether they are framed as an explicit 'promise' or an implicit 'quid pro quo.' The court's focus on the cumulative effect of multiple errors demonstrates that even if individual instances of misconduct or ineffective counsel might not be sufficient on their own, their combined impact can violate a defendant's due process right to a fair trial. The case serves as a significant precedent in Massachusetts law for scrutinizing prosecutorial tactics, particularly the improper use of pending indictments and personal vouching for witnesses. It underscores that a conviction obtained through such compromised proceedings cannot stand.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Johnson