{"id":18737,"date":"2014-03-05T12:19:39","date_gmt":"2014-03-05T16:19:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/masslawyersweekly.com\/fulltext-opinions\/?p=18737"},"modified":"2014-03-05T12:19:39","modified_gmt":"2014-03-05T16:19:39","slug":"commonwealth-v-rodriguez-lawyers-weekly-no-10-035-14","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malwdev.wpengine.com\/fulltext-opinions\/2014\/03\/05\/commonwealth-v-rodriguez-lawyers-weekly-no-10-035-14\/","title":{"rendered":"Commonwealth v. Rodriguez (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-035-14)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.\u00a0 If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

SJC\u201111462<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

COMMONWEALTH\u00a0 vs<\/span>.\u00a0 GEORDANO RODRIGUEZ.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

March 5, 2014.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Controlled Substances<\/span>.\u00a0 Constitutional Law<\/span>, Plea, Conduct of government agents.\u00a0 Due Process of Law<\/span>, Plea, Disclosure of evidence, Presumption.\u00a0 Practice, Criminal<\/span>, Admission to sufficient facts to warrant finding, Plea, Conduct of government agents, Disclosure of evidence, Presumptions and burden of proof.\u00a0 Evidence<\/span>, Guilty plea, Certificate of drug analysis, Disclosure of evidence, Exculpatory, Presumptions and burden of proof.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In June, 2011, allegations of misconduct at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute in the Jamaica Plain section of Boston surfaced regarding work performed by Annie Dookhan, a chemist who had been employed in the forensic drug laboratory (Hinton drug lab) since November, 2003.\u00a0 Based on investigations conducted by the Department of Public Health and the State police, Dookhan was indicted on multiple counts of evidence tampering and obstruction of justice, as well as on at least one count of perjury and one count of falsely claiming to hold a graduate degree, all relating to her handling and testing of samples at the Hinton drug lab.\u00a0 See Commonwealth<\/span> v. Scott<\/span>, ante<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (2014); Commonwealth<\/span> v. Charles<\/span>, 466 Mass. 63, 64 (2013).\u00a0 Dookhan resigned from her position, effective March 9, 2012, and the Hinton drug lab was closed on August 30, 2012.\u00a0 The present case is one of several that has arisen as a consequence of the testing of drug evidence by Dookhan at that facility.\u00a0 We decide this appeal on the basis of our opinion today in Scott<\/span>.[1]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

A criminal complaint issued from the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department charging the defendant, Geordano Rodriguez, with possession with intent to distribute a class A controlled substance (heroin), G.\u00a0L. c.\u00a094C, section\u00a032 (a<\/span>) (count I); commission of this offense within a school zone, G.\u00a0L. c.\u00a094C, section\u00a032J (count II); and possession of a class D controlled substance (marijuana), G.\u00a0L. c.\u00a094C, section\u00a034 (count III).\u00a0 The substances in the four plastic bags seized from the defendant were sent to the Hinton drug lab for testing, and they were determined to contain 5.19 grams of heroin.\u00a0 The first signature on the certificate of drug analysis, on the line labeled “Assistant Analysts,” was that of Dookhan.<\/a>\u00a0 On January\u00a010, 2006, the defendant tendered an admission to sufficient facts to warrant findings of guilty on counts I and III, conditioned on specific dispositional terms that were agreed to by the Commonwealth.\u00a0 See Dist.\/Mun. Cts. R. Crim. P. 4 (c).\u00a0 Count I was reduced to possession of a class A substance, and count II was dismissed.<\/a>\u00a0 The defendant was sentenced to a one-year term of probation on counts I and III, to run concurrently, and the judge imposed an additional penalty of fifty hours of community service.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On November 19, 2012, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001).\u00a0 He claimed that, as a consequence of Dookhan’s misconduct at the Hinton drug lab, his guilty pleas were not “knowing and voluntary,” his due process rights were violated by the Commonwealth’s failure to provide true and accurate discovery prior to his guilty pleas, and the evidence relating to Dookhan’s misconduct constituted “newly discovered exculpatory evidence.”\u00a0 Following a hearing on February 11, 2013,<\/a> a judge denied the defendant’s motion but made no written findings.\u00a0 The defendant appealed, and we granted his application for direct appellate review.<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

An admission to sufficient facts is treated as a plea of guilty.\u00a0 Luk<\/span> v. Commonwealth<\/span>, 421 Mass. 415, 418 n.6 (1995), citing Commonwealth<\/span> v. Duquette<\/span>, 386 Mass. 834, 841 (1982).\u00a0 A motion to withdraw a guilty plea is treated as a motion for a new trial pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b).\u00a0 Commonwealth<\/span> v. Furr<\/span>, 454 Mass. 101, 106 (2009).\u00a0 A judge may grant such a motion “if it appears that justice may not have been done.”\u00a0 Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b).\u00a0 See Commonwealth<\/span> v. Grace<\/span>, 397 Mass. 303, 305 (1986).\u00a0 A motion for a new trial is committed to the sound discretion of the judge.\u00a0 Commonwealth<\/span> v. Russin<\/span>, 420 Mass. 309, 318 (1995).\u00a0 We review a judge’s denial of a motion for a new trial “to determine whether there has been a significant error of law or other abuse of discretion.”\u00a0 Commonwealth<\/span> v. Robideau<\/span>, 464 Mass. 699, 701-702 (2013), quoting Grace<\/span>, supra<\/span> at 307.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The defendant contends on appeal, as he did during the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, that his motion should have been allowed because Dookhan’s misconduct rendered his pleas involuntary and unintelligent, such misconduct constituted newly discovered evidence that cast real doubt on the justness of his convictions, and the Commonwealth failed to provide him with material exculpatory evidence prior to his admission to sufficient facts.\u00a0 Based on our reasoning in Scott<\/span>, supra<\/span> at\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 , we conclude that the defendant is entitled to a conclusive presumption that Dookhan’s misconduct happened in his case, that such misconduct was egregious, and that its occurrence was attributable to the Commonwealth.\u00a0 However, in order to prevail on his motion, the defendant still must demonstrate a reasonable probability that had he known of Dookhan’s misconduct at the Hinton drug lab, he would not have pleaded guilty to the charges against him and would have insisted on going to trial.\u00a0 Id<\/span>. at\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .\u00a0 The judge has made no findings on this matter.\u00a0 Accordingly, we vacate the judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, and we remand the case for further proceedings and findings in accordance with this opinion and our reasoning in Scott<\/span>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

So ordered<\/span>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Claudia Leis Bolgen<\/span> for the defendant.<\/p>\n

Vincent J. DeMore<\/span>, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.<\/p>\n

The following submitted briefs for amici curiae:<\/p>\n

Keith A. Findley<\/span>, of Wisconsin; M. Christopher Fabricant & David Loftis<\/span>, of New York; Howard Schiffman, Katherine L. Schuerman, & Michael Sanocki<\/span>, of the District of Columbia; & David Duncan<\/span>, for The Innocence Network.<\/p>\n

Emma A. Andersson & Ezekiel R. Edwards<\/span>, of New York; Emily A. Cardy & Eric Brandt<\/span>, Committee for Public Counsel Services; & Matthew R. Segal & Elizabeth A. Lunt<\/span>, for Committee for Public Counsel Services & others.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n
\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [1]<\/sup><\/sup> Since this case was argued, Dookhan has pleaded guilty to numerous criminal charges, including evidence tampering, perjury, and witness intimidation.\u00a0 An investigation by the office of the Inspector General into the practices and procedures of the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute and, in particular, the forensic drug laboratory (Hinton drug lab), remains ongoing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/a>[2]<\/sup><\/sup> In 2005, Dookhan tested 11,232 drug samples, which was her highest number in any one year.\u00a0 The second most productive chemist in 2005 tested 6,053 drug samples.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/a>[2]<\/sup><\/sup> The defendant’s conviction of possession of a class A substance resulted in his detainer by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/a>[2]<\/sup><\/sup> At the hearing on the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, defense counsel stated, “[H]ad the defendant known what was afoot at [the Hinton drug] lab, I would not have advised him to take this plea and he surely would have gone to trial and challenged the Commonwealth’s evidence.”\u00a0 Defense counsel further stated that, with knowledge of what had transpired at the facility, he would have argued at trial that the drug evidence was tainted and the chain of custody was flawed.\u00a0 That being the case, defense counsel continued, the trier of fact would not be<\/p>\n

able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the charges against him.\u00a0 The Commonwealth countered that there was no evidence to connect what had transpired at the Hinton drug lab to the defendant’s case.\u00a0 Further, in the Commonwealth’s view, once the defendant admitted to sufficient facts for findings of guilty, he could not claim, based on evidence discovered years later, that his admissions had been involuntary and unintelligent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/a>[2]<\/sup><\/sup> We acknowledge the amicus brief filed in support of the defendant by the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.\u00a0 We also acknowledge the amicus brief filed in support of the defendant by the Innocence Network.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.\u00a0 If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":501,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[95,86,104],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18737","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-law","category-fulltext-opinion","category-supreme-judicial-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/malwdev.wpengine.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18737","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/malwdev.wpengine.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/malwdev.wpengine.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malwdev.wpengine.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/501"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malwdev.wpengine.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18737"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/malwdev.wpengine.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18737\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/malwdev.wpengine.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malwdev.wpengine.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malwdev.wpengine.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}