A three-judge panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court heard competing arguments Tuesday over whether an unsigned draft cooperation agreement and prior stays of sentence created an undisclosed inducement that should trigger a new trial for Shaheed Abdullah (Commonwealth v. Shaheed Abdullah, 2024-1031). Presiding Justice Ariane Bueno introduced the panel and invited counsel to begin.

The issue returned to the appeals court after a prior remand that left open whether resentencing-related understandings and stays, combined with other evidence, could support relief. James McKenna, counsel for Abdullah, told the panel the strongest point on appeal is estoppel and that newly available material shows the prosecutor had typed a draft cooperation agreement before the key witness's grand jury testimony. "The government typed up an agreement in before Jones's grand jury testimony," McKenna said, and that draft, he argued, "predicted his grand jury testimony."

Why it matters: if the court concludes the combination of a resentencing understanding, stays of execution, and a cooperation understanding amounted to an undisclosed inducement, it could reopen the defendant's request for a new trial.

But the panel pressed McKenna on proof. Justice Kenneth Desmond asked, "Is there any evidence that he knew about that?" McKenna acknowledged there was no evidence showing Jones knew of the draft and that defense lawyers previously said they had no agreement in their files. The panel repeatedly returned to whether the unsigned draft had been communicated or executed and whether the Superior Court's findings were clearly erroneous.

Ian MacLean, representing the Commonwealth, responded that the trial judge, and later Judge Ullman, found no evidence the draft was signed, communicated to the witness Jones, or otherwise consummated. MacLean said the defendant had multiple chances to put on affidavits or other evidence but produced none. "The defendant produced nothing to justify an evidentiary hearing," MacLean told the panel, arguing the record before Judge Ullman was the same that had been before the earlier judge and did not show an abuse of discretion.

The panel asked detailed questions about the timing and content of the draft, the testimony given to the grand jury, and what further evidence the defense could have produced. McKenna pressed that the appeals court did not previously decide whether the combination of the resentencing understanding and the stays could amount to estoppel and that the remand left that question open. MacLean reiterated that the remand had required further discovery but that the defendant had not produced proof needed to justify a new evidentiary hearing.

The court took the arguments under advisement and moved to the next docketed matter; no opinion was announced from the bench.

Ending: The panel did not issue a decision from the bench. The appeal will be resolved by written opinion after the court reviews the arguments and the record.