Homicide Conviction Vacated Due to Interpreter Failure: What Commonwealth v. Sammy Lozada Means for Defendants
At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, as a top-rated criminal defense firm serving Boston, Brockton, and Greater Massachusetts, we know how high the stakes are in homicide cases. A new ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Commonwealth v. Sammy Lozada, SJC-12985, decided July 17, 2025) illustrates just how crucial it is for courts to follow every procedural safeguard—especially when a person’s life and liberty hang in the balance.
This landmark decision overturns a first-degree murder conviction because the prosecution’s key witness, a severely language-deprived and deaf woman, was allowed to testify without the statutorily required judicial determination that interpreters could accurately communicate with her. The case reinforces the principle that constitutional rights and statutory procedures are not formalities—they are foundations of justice.
If you or a loved one is facing murder charges or any serious violent crime in Massachusetts, the experienced trial attorneys at Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP are here to fight for your rights and expose any flaws in the prosecution's case. Below, we break down the Lozada case and explain why it matters for anyone seeking a Boston-area criminal defense lawyer or homicide attorney.
Case Overview: Commonwealth v. Sammy Lozada
Sammy Lozada was convicted of first-degree murder in Hampden Superior Court for the stabbing death of Carlos Ramos. The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimony of Maria Samot, a deaf, severely language-deprived woman who communicated using idiosyncratic gestures rooted in her cultural background. She did not use American Sign Language (ASL) or any recognized language. Nonetheless, the trial court allowed her to testify through a team of ASL and certified deaf interpreters—without first determining whether they could effectively communicate with her, as required under G.L. c. 221, § 92A.
Following conviction, Lozada filed a motion for a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b). The motion was allowed by the trial judge, who found that the failure to make the required interpreter determination created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Commonwealth appealed.
On July 17, 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial judge’s decision, granting Lozada a new trial.
Why Did the SJC Vacate the Murder Conviction?
The Court ruled that the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a threshold inquiry under G.L. c. 221, § 92A, which mandates that:
“No testimony shall be admitted as evidence until... the person conducting such proceedings determines... that such interpreter is able... to communicate accurately with and translate information to and from [the deaf or hearing-impaired person].”
In plain terms: the judge needed to ensure—on the record—that the interpreters could effectively convey information between Samot and the courtroom before allowing her to testify.
That never happened.
The failure was especially damaging given Samot’s unique communication limitations. She lacked any formal language, struggled to understand abstract concepts, and often gave nonresponsive answers, particularly under cross-examination. For example, when defense counsel asked her who was present in the kitchen during the stabbing, Samot repeatedly responded, “He stabbed him,” rather than answering the actual question.
Had the court held the required hearing, the problems with interpretation may have been revealed before the damage was done.
Why This Matters for Anyone Facing Murder Charges in Massachusetts
This case is a powerful reminder that even in high-stakes trials—especially in Boston homicide cases—courts can and do make critical errors. As Boston criminal defense attorneys with extensive murder trial experience, we understand how to identify and litigate these errors on appeal and in post-conviction proceedings.
The Lozada ruling reinforces several key points:
1. Eyewitness Testimony Can Be Fatally Flawed
Eyewitness testimony is often seen as powerful, but it is also among the most error-prone forms of evidence—particularly when filtered through layers of interpretation. In Lozada, the prosecution’s star witness identified the defendant, but the SJC found serious reliability issues due to her inability to communicate clearly or consistently.
If you’re facing a murder charge based on questionable eyewitness identification, especially in Boston or the surrounding area, you need a Boston homicide lawyer who can rigorously test and challenge the state’s witnesses.
2. Interpreter Failures Can Undermine a Conviction
The Lozada decision is unprecedented in that it vacated a first-degree murder conviction due to interpreter deficiencies. The SJC made clear that when a witness cannot meaningfully communicate—even with help—their testimony may be inadmissible. That’s especially true when the statutory procedures designed to ensure reliability are ignored.
Our firm has extensive experience handling cases involving linguistic and cognitive barriers. If your case involves interpreters, vulnerable witnesses, or disabilities, Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP can help ensure your rights are protected.
3. Trial Counsel Mistakes Can Be Grounds for a New Trial
The SJC also noted that Lozada’s attorney failed to object to the witness’s inadmissible testimony, failed to move to strike nonresponsive answers, and didn’t request the required hearing. While the Court didn’t reach a constitutional ruling on ineffective assistance of counsel, it clearly signaled that such failures contributed to the miscarriage of justice.
If your defense lawyer missed key arguments or failed to challenge damaging evidence, you may have a viable motion for a new trial. Our team regularly handles post-conviction litigation and appeals for clients throughout Massachusetts.
What Happened in the Lozada Trial?
The prosecution claimed that Lozada, accompanied by two others, forced entry into an apartment on Maple Street in Holyoke, looking for a tablet that had been taken earlier that evening. Once inside, they encountered Carlos Ramos, and according to the state’s theory, Lozada fatally stabbed him with a black-handled knife. Maria Samot—who lived at the apartment—was the only eyewitness who claimed to see the stabbing and identified Lozada as the attacker.
But Samot was a unique witness. She was:
Deaf
Illiterate
Severely language-deprived
Incapable of using ASL or spoken/written language
Despite these profound limitations, the trial proceeded without any judicial inquiry into whether interpreters could reliably convey her testimony. This omission violated G.L. c. 221, § 92A.
Her testimony was riddled with problems. She gave nonresponsive answers under direct and cross-examination. She repeated the assertion that “he stabbed him” in response to unrelated questions. Defense counsel had no effective way to confront her about inconsistent statements she made earlier to police.
The Expert Evidence at the Motion for a New Trial
During the evidentiary hearing on Lozada’s motion for a new trial, the defense presented expert testimony from linguists and interpreters who specialize in communication with severely language-deprived individuals. Their findings were damning:
Samot’s communication relied heavily on cultural and personal gestures, not standardized signs.
She struggled with abstract concepts such as time, space, cause and effect.
The interpreters lacked training in visual gestural communication and could not accurately translate many of her responses.
Some interpreters had previously worked with Samot during police interviews, potentially creating unconscious bias.
The trial judge—who also presided over the motion hearing—credited the expert testimony and found that “the proceeding required by § 92A would have informed the entire course of Samot’s testimony.”
In other words: had the court done its job, the jury may never have heard Samot’s testimony in its flawed form.
Implications for Boston Murder Defense Lawyers
The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Lozada sets a clear precedent: when a witness is deaf, severely language-deprived, or otherwise communicatively impaired, courts must strictly comply with statutory requirements before admitting testimony. The decision reinforces that trial judges serve as gatekeepers for evidence reliability and that their failure to screen for communication competence can taint the entire trial.
If you're a defendant in a Boston-area homicide case, it’s critical that your lawyer understands how to litigate issues of admissibility, interpretation, and eyewitness identification. At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we bring that level of scrutiny and strategy to every serious felony defense.
Takeaways for Defendants Facing Murder or Violent Crime Charges in Massachusetts
Whether you’re in Boston, Brockton, New Bedford, or Fall River, this case offers important lessons:
A conviction is not the end. Lozada’s team successfully challenged a conviction years after the trial by exposing procedural failures.
Interpreter issues matter. If a key witness or defendant cannot meaningfully participate in the trial process due to language or cognitive limitations, that may be grounds to suppress testimony or seek a new trial.
Every error counts. From pretrial motions to cross-examination, small mistakes can snowball into a miscarriage of justice. That’s why retaining an experienced Boston criminal defense lawyer is critical.
The SJC is watching. Massachusetts’s highest court will not hesitate to vacate a conviction—even a first-degree murder conviction—when statutory safeguards are ignored and the risk of injustice is too great.
Contact a Boston Homicide Defense Lawyer Today
If you or someone you care about is facing a murder charge, manslaughter allegation, or violent felony in Massachusetts, don’t wait. You need the best possible legal defense—and that means working with attorneys who understand the stakes, the law, and the courtroom.
At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, our team of skilled Boston criminal defense lawyers has decades of experience defending the most serious cases. We handle:
First-degree murder and felony-murder defense
Violent crime charges including armed robbery and assault
Motions for new trial and post-conviction relief
Interpreter issues and evidentiary challenges
Appeals in the Massachusetts Appeals Court and SJC
We proudly represent clients in Boston, Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford, Springfield, and courts across the Commonwealth. If you’re looking for an aggressive and knowledgeable Boston murder charge attorney, contact us today for a confidential consultation.