SJC hears arguments over judge's decision to allow a new trial for Stephen Pina

At oral argument before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, attorneys for the Commonwealth and for Stephen Pina debated whether a motion judge properly allowed a new trial in Pina's decades-old murder conviction.

Attorney Ian MacLean, for the Commonwealth, told the court the motion judge committed a series of legal errors when he allowed the third motion for a new trial, focusing first on the treatment records that included a Post-it note. MacLean said the defendants never satisfied the Bishop protocol in effect at the time of the 1990s trial and that the motion judge made "zero relevant factual findings" that the records contained impeachment material; he added that the proffered experts were speculative and "would never have been allowed to testify at trial." MacLean also argued the judge failed to weigh any claimed impeachment value against the strength of the Commonwealth's case (citing a separate percipient witness, Hall, and an admission by the defendant) as required by precedent.

A central dispute before the court was whether the mere existence of psychiatric treatment…