Commonwealth v. Mcfarlane
493 Mass. __ (2024) (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence does not extend to a pending civil lawsuit alleging police misconduct, as such a lawsuit constitutes an unsubstantiated allegation. However, the prosecutor’s duty of inquiry does require investigation into and disclosure of actual findings of civil liability against a police officer, provided those findings relate to the officer's official duties.
Facts:
- On July 7, 2017, Officer Daniel Moynahan and Officer Brian Phillips were on patrol and observed a black Infiniti G37 with a revoked registration and license plates for a different vehicle.
- The officers observed Denzel Mcfarlane park the Infiniti, exit, and approach the front bumper, leaving the driver’s side door open, with a female passenger and at least one child inside.
- Phillips approached Mcfarlane, who did not have a driver's license, and then observed a firearm lodged between the driver's seat and center console while walking past the open door.
- Mcfarlane admitted he did not have a license to carry the firearm, was arrested, and then, after Moynahan handcuffed the female passenger, Mcfarlane yelled, 'She has nothing to do with it. It's not hers,' leading Moynahan to uncuff her.
- Mcfarlane testified at trial that he had no knowledge of the firearm, having just purchased the Infiniti, and denied yelling any statement about the firearm or witnessing the passenger being handcuffed, claiming Phillips had found the gun after arresting him.
- In March 2018, Daniel Bradley filed a civil lawsuit against Moynahan and other officers, alleging unlawful seizure and arrest, false imprisonment, and other claims, stemming from an unrelated motor vehicle stop.
- On February 21, 2020, ten days after Mcfarlane’s trial concluded, Moynahan was found civilly liable for false arrest and false imprisonment in the Bradley lawsuit.
- Mcfarlane learned of the civil lawsuit and verdict against Moynahan from an online news publication after his trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Denzel Mcfarlane was arraigned in the Springfield Division of the District Court Department on July 10, 2017, on multiple charges including unlawful possession of a firearm.
- Mcfarlane's trial commenced in February 2020.
- On February 11, 2020, a jury found Mcfarlane guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and improper storage of a firearm.
- In August 2020, Mcfarlane filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory evidence concerning a pending civil lawsuit against Officer Daniel Moynahan.
- On July 2, 2021, the District Court judge who presided over Mcfarlane's trial denied the motion for a new trial.
- Mcfarlane appealed his convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial to the Appeals Court (Mcfarlane was the appellant, the Commonwealth was the appellee).
- The Appeals Court affirmed Mcfarlane's convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial.
- Both Mcfarlane and the Commonwealth filed applications for further appellate review with the Supreme Judicial Court, which the SJC granted, limited to the issues surrounding the denial of the new trial motion.
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 prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland require disclosure of a pending civil lawsuit alleging misconduct against a police officer involved in a defendant's case, and what is the scope of a prosecutor's duty of inquiry regarding findings of civil liability against such officers?
Opinions:
Majority - Gaziano, J.
No, a prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland does not require disclosure of a pending civil lawsuit alleging misconduct against a police officer involved in a defendant's case, because such a lawsuit constitutes an unsubstantiated allegation. However, yes, the duty of inquiry does require prosecutors to inquire about the existence of findings of civil liability against such officers if those findings relate to the officer's official duties. The Court reasoned that a pending civil lawsuit, particularly at the pleading stage, only requires 'factual allegations plausibly suggesting' an entitlement to relief (Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly), which is a lower standard than criminal prosecutions. Thus, until there is an adjudicated finding of liability, a pending civil lawsuit is akin to an unsubstantiated allegation and does not tend to negate the guilt of a defendant. However, a 'bright-line rule' is established, differentiating a pending civil lawsuit from a finding of civil liability. A finding of civil liability, being the result of a judicial process where evidence has been weighed, has exculpatory value and must be disclosed and inquired into by prosecutors if it relates to the officer's performance of official duties, as it could be used for impeachment (Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation, Graham v. District Attorney for the Hampden Dist.). Since the lawsuit against Moynahan was merely pending at the time of Mcfarlane's trial, it was not exculpatory evidence requiring disclosure.
Concurring - Lowy, J.
Justice Lowy agrees with the Court's conclusion that a prosecutor has no duty to inquire about pending civil allegations against prosecution team members. However, Justice Lowy writes separately to emphasize that while the ultimate admissibility of information is not determinative of a prosecutor's disclosure or inquiry obligations, it nonetheless helps inform the 'reasonableness' of that duty. The analytical gap between information sought and information that might be admitted in evidence provides a limitation on the scope of the duty of inquiry. The more unrelated an unproven contention of misconduct is to the investigation, arrest, and prosecution, the greater the risk of obligating a prosecutor to search for evidence unlikely to affect the underlying case (citing Wood v. Bartholomew).
Concurring - Cypher, J.
Justice Cypher agrees with the Court's decision that the prosecutor had no duty to inquire in this specific case. However, she writes separately to propose an end to the 'Bohannon rule,' which is a narrow exception allowing evidence of prior false rape allegations to impeach a witness's credibility. She argues that this rule, rooted in the misogynistic belief that women are prone to lying about sexual assault, has problematic origins. She highlights that the 'falsity' requirement is difficult to prove, especially when victims recant for reasons other than untruthfulness (e.g., trauma, threats, shame), and that delving into past sexual encounters to prove falsity often violates the intent of rape shield laws. She concludes that, given modern understanding of trauma responses, such rules should be re-examined.
Concurring - Wendlandt, J.
Justice Wendlandt agrees that a bright-line rule for disclosure of civil lawsuits is helpful. However, she expresses disagreement with the Commonwealth's (and the Court's apparent) view that civil lawsuits are necessarily unsubstantiated until a finding of liability. She points out that civil counsel must certify that allegations have a factual basis after reasonable investigation (Mass. R. Civ. P. 11), and civil claims against police officers often must overcome motions based on qualified immunity and summary judgment, requiring specific admissible evidence. Nonetheless, she joins the Court's opinion because a clear line is beneficial, and defendants can readily access publicly available information regarding pending civil actions against police officers.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and solidifies the scope of prosecutorial discovery obligations in Massachusetts, particularly regarding information about police misconduct. By establishing a bright-line rule distinguishing pending civil lawsuits from adjudicated findings of civil liability, the SJC provides critical guidance to prosecutors. This decision ensures that prosecutors are not unduly burdened by unsubstantiated allegations while reinforcing the importance of disclosing reliable, adjudicated information that could bear on witness credibility. It will likely reduce litigation over the discoverability of mere allegations but increase scrutiny on prosecutors to establish robust systems for tracking and disclosing findings of civil liability against police officers on their prosecution teams, aligning with previous decisions like Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation and Graham.
