Commonwealth v. Lykus

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
451 Mass. 310 (2008)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The prosecution's failure to disclose specifically requested exculpatory evidence held by a cooperating federal agency in a joint investigation is imputed to the state, but it does not warrant a new trial if the case against the defendant was overwhelming and the undisclosed evidence would have had only a slight effect on the jury's verdict.

Facts:

On November 2, 1972, thirteen-year-old Paul Cavalieri disappeared after being seen near his home in North Attleborough.
Over the next week, the Cavalieri family received a ransom note for $50,000 and a series of whispered telephone calls with instructions for dropping off the money.
During one ransom drop attempt on November 7, a police officer observed the defendant, Arthur Lykus, drive past the drop point three times.
On November 10, police observed an elaborate pickup of the ransom money, which led them to Lykus. A ten-dollar bill from the ransom money was later found in Lykus's possession.
Lykus gave investigators a series of conflicting stories, first claiming he was stealing tires, then that he was picking up a package for a stranger, and later that he was working for the victim's brother, Anthony 'Bobo' Cavalieri.
On April 12, 1973, Paul Cavalieri's body was found; he had been killed by two .38 caliber bullets. Police later seized Lykus's .38 caliber revolver and a box of unusual ammunition.
While in jail, Lykus confessed to an inmate, William Delaney, that he was present in his car when the victim was shot. Lykus provided Delaney with a hand-drawn map to the location of the remaining ransom money.
Using the map from Lykus, police recovered $48,980 of the ransom money hidden in a plastic bag that was traced back to a box of bags purchased by Lykus.

Procedural Posture:

In 1973, Arthur Lykus was convicted of murder in the first degree, kidnapping, and extortion in the Massachusetts Superior Court (trial court).
In 1975, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (highest state court) affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.
Lykus subsequently filed at least two unsuccessful motions for a new trial.
Years later, Lykus filed a third motion for a new trial in the Superior Court, arguing that evidence obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI was newly discovered and/or improperly withheld.
A Superior Court judge, who was not the original trial judge, allowed the defendant's motion and granted him a new trial.
The Commonwealth filed an application seeking leave to appeal the new trial order to the Supreme Judicial Court.
A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court granted the Commonwealth's application, allowing the appeal to proceed before the full court.

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 the prosecution's failure to disclose an inconclusive FBI voice spectrogram report, which is imputed to the state, require a new trial when there is otherwise overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt?

Opinions:

Majority - Spina, J.

No. The failure to disclose the FBI's voice spectrogram report does not require a new trial because the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming, and the nondisclosure was not sufficiently prejudicial. First, the court held that the FBI's failure to disclose its inconclusive voiceprint report must be imputed to the Commonwealth due to the extensive cooperation between the state and federal authorities in this joint investigation. However, to warrant a new trial, the defendant must show a 'substantial basis for claiming prejudice.' Here, the undisclosed report was not strongly exculpatory; it stated it was 'not possible to definitely determine' if the voice was Lykus's, but it also noted similarities that would have undermined the defense's strategy of attacking the science itself. More importantly, the case against Lykus was overwhelming, based on the integrated body of circumstantial evidence including his contradictory statements, possession of ransom money, the map leading to the rest of the money, and his confession to an inmate. This evidence was bolstered by the powerful testimony of seven lay witnesses who knew Lykus and positively identified his voice on the ransom tape. The scientific voice evidence was merely cumulative and 'little more than overkill,' and its absence would have had but a slight effect on the jury's decision.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that a conviction will not be overturned for a prosecutorial failure to disclose exculpatory evidence (a Brady violation) if the error is deemed harmless. It clarifies that in joint state-federal investigations, the state prosecutor can be held responsible for disclosure failures by the federal agency, extending the scope of the prosecutor's duty. However, the ruling also sets a high bar for demonstrating prejudice, emphasizing that courts will weigh the undisclosed evidence against the totality of the evidence presented at trial. The case demonstrates that where guilt is established by overwhelming evidence, procedural errors or the suppression of moderately helpful evidence may not be enough to undermine the finality of the conviction.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth v. Lykus (2008)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"