State supreme court hears appeal in Van Dorsey murder conviction over PTSD inquiry and premeditation evidence

Boston — The state supreme court heard oral argument in Commonwealth v. Van Dorsey Jr., during which defense attorney Edward Gaffney told the justices that trial counsel had an expert available but "prematurely" ended the investigation into whether Van Dorsey suffered from post‑traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time of the stabbing.

Gaffney argued that trial counsel "had an expert" and then, based on limited inquiry, concluded PTSD was unavailable as a defense. "He asked the expert to look into PTSD, and she reported back what she reported back," Gaffney told the court, pressing that counsel failed to send the expert back for a fuller evaluation and so deprived the jury of scientific evidence that might have undercut the Commonwealth's theory of premeditation.

The question before the court, as framed in argument, is twofold: whether counsel's investigation was constitutionally inadequate under ineffective‑assistance standards, and, if so, whether the omission created a substantial likelihood of a different result. The defense emphasizes gaps in the trial record and the defense affidavit…