Court orders new trial for man convicted in 1986 for Dorchester murder

The Supreme Judicial Court today ordered a new trial for Joseph Pope, who was convicted in 1986 for his role in a drug-related murder in Uphams Corner two years earlier because an assistant Suffolk County district attorney withheld notes he took during the murder investigation that that might have helped the defense.

Pope was one of two men convicted for the shooting murder of Efrain DeJesus on Nonquit Street on May 23, 1984. According to the court summary, the two men robbed and shot DeJesus downstairs from his brother's apartment, over cocaine and money. Although the other man was convicted of actually shooting DeJesus, Pope was convicted of first-degree murder under a legal concept known as "felony-murder," in which he was judged to be just as guilty as the trigger puller because he was actively involved in planning and carrying out the crime that turned into a murder.

In their ruling today, the justices concluded that Pope's rights to a fair trial were violated because an assistant DA who responded to the murder scene and who took notes did not give a copy to Pope's then attorney. That, the court ruled, was a violation of a constitutional mandate that prosecutors turn over any evidence that might help the defense.

The notes, the court ruled, could have been used to poke holes in the testimony of the main witness in the case - DeJesus's brother - because they were further proof that the brother kept changing his story of what happened from the time he was first interviewed by investigators to the time he testified in court and because they showed that a police detective had suspicions about possible involvement by DeJesus's brother.

Under the favorable standard of prejudice we must apply here, the nondisclosure of these pieces of information constitutes a prejudicial violation of the Commonwealth's Brady obligation and requires the defendant be granted a new trial.

As just one example, had Pope's lawyer had a copy of the notes, he could have asked the brother, known as Benny, why he gave one name for the woman to whose house he drove his children after the murder, then gave another at trial:

The fact that Benny's statements related to his friend or girlfriend and her address changed over time could have lent credence to the defense's theory that Benny was a biased witness who may have had reason to mislead the Commonwealth about the events of the night of the shooting.

The court continues this equally applies to notes about an interview with another person who contradicted the brother's assertion that the victim was a cocaine dealer - raising the possibility it was the brother who was the dealer in the family. And:

Furthermore, the Commonwealth repeatedly asserted, including in its closing argument, that there were no notes taken during or about Benny's initial interviews with the police. The very existence of the [assistant DA] documents demonstrates the inaccuracy of these assertions and calls into question aspects of the Commonwealth's investigation or preparation for trial.

Pope's appeals lawyer found a copy of the memo in 2018 in a box of evidence held by the DA's office.