In Massachusetts, a criminal defendant can file a motion requesting a new trial or a withdrawal of his accepted plea “if it appears that justice may not have been done.”
The authority for filing such a motion is found in Rule 30(b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Broadly speaking, there are two scenarios where such a motion is appropriate.
First, the defendant can file a Rule 30(b) motion when an error was made during trial. The notes to Rule 30(b) give the following examples:
- Improper jury instructions;
- Ineffective assistance of counsel;
- Jury misconduct;
- Prosecutorial failure to produce exculpatory evidence;
- Judicial failure to rule on motions in limine.
Second, a Rule 30(b) motion can be filed when, after trial, new facts emerge which have some bearing on the defendant’s guilt. Such new facts must be “material and credible” according to the Rule’s notes.
However, it is not necessary for the newly discovered facts to fully exculpate the defendant. Rather, the key question is whether the new facts would have, in some meaningful way, influenced the jury’s decision.
The motion judge decides not whether the verdict would have been different, but rather whether the new evidence would probably have been a real factor in the jury’s deliberation.
Commonwealth v. Moore, 408 Mass. 177, 126-127 (1990).
While Rule 30(b) is typically used to demand a new trial, it can also be employed when the defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea or an admission of facts sufficient for a finding of guilty.
The notes state that,
A new trial under Rule 30(b) is also the appropriate vehicle to attack the validity of a guilty plea or an admission to sufficient facts.
Similarly, the SJC has ruled that
The appropriate method for attacking the lawfulness of the admission to sufficient facts and the sentence imposed is a postconviction motion for a new trial pursuant to rule 30(b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Commonwealth v. Dunbrack, 398 Mass. 502, 504 (1986).
So how, exactly, does a defendant file such a motion?
First, he must prepare a written motion which gives specific grounds for requesting a new trial. Again, such grounds exist when (1) there was an error made during trial or (2) new facts relating to the defendant’s culpability have been discovered.
The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit providing the pertinent facts that support the motion. A motion filed pursuant to Rule 30(b) can and likely will be dismissed if it is not supported by such an affidavit.
Both the motion and the affidavit must be served on “the prosecutor who represented the Commonwealth in the trial court.” Rule 30(c)(1).
As stated in the notes,
The prosecutor’s office which maintains the original trial file is in the best position, and is responsible for, responding to motions for a new trial.
Once the motion and the affidavit are filed with the court, the matter “may be heard by the judge wherever the judge is then sitting.” Rule 30(c)(70.
I’ve emphasized the word “may” because the trial judge has a tremendous amount of discretion regarding whether to give your motion a hearing or simply make his or her ruling based on the paperwork submitted.
As a general rule, a judge may decide a motion for a new trial based solely on affidavits, and additional testimony need not be heard.
Commonwealth v. Conaghan, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 304, 308-309 (1999).
However, the SJC has at least suggested that any Rule 30 motion that raises a legitimate issue should be given a hearing:
A judge may rule on a motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing if no substantial issue is raised by the motion or accompanying affidavits.
Commonwealth v. Vinton, 432 Mass. 180, 183 n. 2 (2000). Emphasis added.
Though, as noted by the Appeals Court,
It is a very uphill battle for a party to establish that a judge acting on a motion for a new trial abused his discretion.
Commonwealth v. Hammond, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 171, 178 (2000).