Mass. high court hears appeal alleging egregious Brady violations in Goparian murder conviction

The Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument in SJC-13391 over whether Donovan E. Goparian’s first-degree murder conviction should be set aside after defense counsel said prosecutors failed to disclose a 2018 federal proffer that pointed to other possible perpetrators.

Merit Schnipper, appearing for Goparian, told the court, “The Brady violation in this case was egregious, both in terms of the initial nondisclosure and in terms of the prosecutor's failure in his duty of inquiry upon receiving the Richardson email.” Schnipper said the withheld material included a proffer in which a federal informant (referred to in briefs as Nuzzolillo or a similar spelling) reported admissions by Billy McElhinney, who Schnipper described as the defendant’s nephew and a central witness at trial.

Why it matters: Goparian is serving a life sentence without parole for a 2019 murder, and the appeal raises whether nondisclosure and the trial court’s refusal to order an evidentiary hearing deprived the defense of material exculpatory evidence under Brady and related standards. Schnipper told the justices that the defense spent two years in public-records work to obtain an email from Detective Richardson showing the Commonwealth had been put on notice of the proffer and yet did not disclose it before trial or at subsequent post-conviction proceedings.

Defense argument and evidence cited

Schnipper said the withheld information went beyond mere rumor. He described the proffer witness as someone federal agents had proffered against and who had recounted living with McElhinney at times when admissions about the burning of the victim’s car and a firearm could have been made. Schnipper argued that information in the proffer would have allowed the defense to confront and cross-examine key witnesses, to pursue a search of a pond McElhinney named as the site of gun disposal, and to develop ballistics and medical evidence that, in the defense’s view, undercut the Commonwealth’s theory.

Schnipper also summarized post-conviction investigative findings the defense obtained: a ballistics expert (Lewis Gordon) later performed tests comparing ammunition and reported atypical markings and an unusually low measured velocity in one test firing; a pathologist (Dr. Lapasada) offered an affidavit about the expected effects of a close-range facial gunshot; and the defense obtained a firearms-related note that, Schnipper said, indicated the prosecution had not provided complete firearms discovery. Schnipper characterized the cumulative record as a “knowing and willful violation of Brady” and urged the court to grant relief or an evidentiary hearing.

Commonwealth response

Assistant District Attorney Donna Marie Haran told the justices: “The Commonwealth is here conceding that the prosecutor should have disclosed to the defendant prior to trial the limited information he knew about that 2018 proffer.” Haran argued, however, that Judge Wren — the trial judge who denied the motion for a new trial and declined a full evidentiary hearing — reasonably found the proffer witness not credible and that the remaining trial evidence was overwhelming.

The Commonwealth emphasized multiple trial witnesses and corroborating material: testimony from Tom Hogan and Heidi Thompson, testimony that Joe O’Grady picked up a key witness during the relevant time frame, jailhouse testimony (Mallette/Millett), cell‑phone records the Commonwealth said corroborated timelines, gas receipts and other investigative material. Haran told the court the judge viewed those items together and concluded the nondisclosure did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial.

Points the justices pressed

During argument the justices asked both sides to identify the precise prejudice that nondisclosure produced and to explain whether the physical report or merely the information was in the Commonwealth’s custody and control. The court also questioned the probative value and credibility of the proffer witness (who later provided a short affidavit adopting the proffer statements), the timing and substance of the defense’s request for an evidentiary hearing, and whether more active inquiry by the prosecutor upon receiving the Richardson email would have changed the pretrial record.

No ruling at argument

The transcript of the argument records extensive back-and-forth but no decision. Haran asked the SJC to affirm Judge Wren’s denial of the motion for a new trial; Schnipper pressed for rehearing and discovery. The court concluded oral argument without announcing a disposition.

Background and procedural posture

The appeal concerns alleged Brady nondisclosure tied to a 2018 federal proffer and later discovery work by defense counsel that produced an email from Detective Mark Richardson. The trial judge denied multiple motions for post-conviction discovery and, later, a motion for a new trial and evidentiary hearing; the Commonwealth stipulated as to the truth of certain defense affidavits at one stage, which the defense says was tactical and prevented a hearing. The exact dates of the underlying trial and conviction and many post-conviction filings are reflected in briefing and the trial record cited at argument but are not specified in this oral-argument transcript.

What the parties did not resolve at argument

The court did not rule during the argument on whether the proffer documents were in the Commonwealth’s custody or whether the later affidavit from the proffer witness sufficed to overcome credibility questions. The justices also did not announce whether they will order an evidentiary hearing or other relief.

Next steps

The SJC will issue a written decision after considering the parties’ briefs and argument. No timeframe was announced at the close of oral argument.