Brief for Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Argument: Every Dookhan defendant should be afforded the presumption that Dookhan’s fraud was prejudicial. The presumption of prejudice should be irrebuttable. A conclusive presumption preserves the integrity of the judicial system. A conclusive presumption would allow for more efficient administration of justice and would more effectively deter future commonwealth misconduct. The court should bar re-prosecution of dismissed Dookhan cases. Dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate corrective to the lax response by the Commonwealth to the Dookhan and Farak scandals. A bar on re-prosecution will obviate a need for courts to address the question of whether Dookhan not only falsified drug certifications, but also irrevocably corrupted the underlying drug sample.
Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae.
Argument: Due process and the Rules of Professional Conduct require the prosecutors to promptly notify individual defendants of the exculpatory evidence in each affected case. Because the Commonwealth was aware of this exculpatory evidence at the time of each trial or plea, Brady v. Maryland requires prompt disclosure to each defendant. That a Brady violation occurred in each Dookhan defendant’s case is clear. Prior decisions of both the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court support the conclusion that Brady requires disclosure for defendants whose trials included Dookhan-tainted evidence. Prior decisions of both the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court support the conclusion that Brady requires disclosure for defendants in Dookhan-tainted cases who pled guilty. All prosecutors of Dookhan cases have an ethical obligation to promptly disclose this exculpatory evidence pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d).