New Trials and New Evidence

Favorite Prof. Colin Miller has an intriguing post about  Commonwealth v. Gaines, 240 N.E.3d 193 (Mass. 2024).

"The opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Gaines, is a significant one in the wrongful conviction space. Specifically, it bears upon the leading cause of wrongful convictions: eyewitness misidentifications. So, what did Massachusetts's highest court rule?" The court concluded that

"As the motion judge noted, the field of eyewitness identification research did not even exist until years after the defendant's trial. . . . Both parties agree that eyewitness identification research was unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial. There is therefore ample support for the conclusion that the new research on eyewitness identification presented by the defendant qualifies as newly discovered evidence in this case. The motion judge did not abuse her discretion in reaching the same determination."
​
. . . 
As I said, this is a pretty significant ruling. Typically, "newly discovered evidence" consists of things like an alternate suspect confessing, crime scene DNA finally being tested and excluding the defendant as a source, etc. Under this ruling in Gaines, however, changes in science can also constitute "newly discovered evidence." This would suggest that new evidence undermining forensic bite mark comparisons, "Shaken Baby Syndrome," etc. can constitute "newly discovered evidence" and grounds for a new trial.