Supreme Judicial Court hears appeal in Jose Ramos case over withheld evidence and withdrawn instruction

Michael Tempowski, attorney for Jose Ramos, told the Supreme Judicial Court that Ramos is "entitled to a new trial for 2 independent reasons": the trial court did not admit prior-act evidence about the victim and trial counsel withdrew a requested sudden-combat manslaughter instruction, conduct Tempowski said created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.

The exchange unfolded during oral argument before the court. Tempowski argued the prior-act evidence was wrongly excluded under the governing admissibility framework and that that exclusion prevented the defense from placing evidence before the jury that would have made the victim's alleged history of violence relevant to a self-defense theory. "It's actually harder for the Commonwealth to introduce counteraction evidence than it is for the defendant to introduce," Tempowski said, invoking case-law distinctions he said favor a defendant when the alleged victim's conduct is at issue.

Several justices pressed the point of strategic choice. One asked whether the trial judge could credit defense counsel's affidavit explaining the tactical decision not to pursue the evidence. Tempowski acknowledged counsel's explanation had been credited below but told the court that whether a strategic choice was "manifestly unreasonable" remained reviewable as a legal question, not just a factual one.

The bench and counsel also debated the effect of the surveillance video and witness testimony. Tempowski summarized testimony from a witness, Mr. Perkins, and forensic markers: Perkins described a push, the victim retrieving a screwdriver and jabbing, and Mr. Ramos drawing a knife; there was testimony of blood on a screwdriver and holes in Ramos's jacket. "Based on all that, the judge gave the self-defense instruction and two of the three manslaughter instructions," Tempowski said, arguing that the sudden-combat instruction should also have been considered.

Travis Lynch, for the Commonwealth, responded that the motion judge (Judge Kallen) credited trial counsel's explanation for not offering the prior-act evidence and that a timely offer of that evidence likely would have triggered a Rule 403 balancing that would exclude highly prejudicial material. "I don't think Judge Sweeney would have ever let that evidence in," Lynch said, arguing that some allegations the defense sought to introduce were too inflammatory and minimally probative. Lynch also stressed the strength of the Commonwealth's case: he pointed to the surveillance video, the severity of the stab wounds, and other forensic evidence, and argued the jury had already rejected Perkins's account.

On the instructional claim, the Commonwealth told the court the jury received a reasonable-provocation instruction that covers much of the same ground as sudden combat and that, given the overall record, there is no substantial likelihood the outcome would have differed. Lynch asked the court to affirm the denial of relief.

The justices questioned whether the withdrawal of a requested instruction is an invited error that bars appellate relief, or whether the issue may be reviewed under the "substantial likelihood" standard that governs reversal motions. Neither side pointed to a controlling precedent that resolved the precise interplay of invited error, counsel strategy, and the manifest-unreasonableness standard in these facts.

Oral argument concluded with the court hearing both sides; the justices took the matter under advisement and did not announce a decision from the bench.