Commonwealth v. Gomes: A 2015 Case that Changed How Massachusetts Courts Handle Eyewitness Identification Evidence
When someone is accused of a crime in Massachusetts, one of the most powerful pieces of evidence the prosecution often relies upon is eyewitness identification. But science has shown time and again that eyewitness memory is not as reliable as many people think. In fact, mistaken identifications are one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions in the United States.
In 2015, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a groundbreaking decision in Commonwealth v. Gomes, 470 Mass. 352. This case reshaped the way Massachusetts courts treat eyewitness identifications, requiring judges to update jury instructions to reflect what modern science teaches us about human memory. For both criminal defense lawyers and people accused of crimes, this case was a game-changer.
The Gomes Case: Background
The case involved a shooting in Dorchester, where the defendant, Gomes, was identified by eyewitnesses as the shooter. At trial, Gomes’s defense argued that the identifications were unreliable and that the jury should be instructed on the weaknesses of eyewitness testimony.
While trial judges in Massachusetts had long given “cautionary” instructions on eyewitness identifications, they were outdated and did not reflect the modern science of memory. Gomes’s appeal asked the SJC to change that—and the Court agreed.
What the SJC Held in Gomes
The Massachusetts SJC recognized that decades of social science research had proven that eyewitness identifications can be dangerously unreliable. The Court adopted new model jury instructions, directing judges to explain specific scientific principles to jurors.
The Gomes decision identified five key principles of identification science that must be explained:
Human memory does not work like a video recording. Memory is not stored and retrieved perfectly—it is reconstructive and prone to distortion.
Witness confidence is not a reliable predictor of accuracy. A witness who appears “sure” may still be mistaken.
High stress at the time of an event can reduce accuracy. Traumatic events often impair, rather than sharpen, memory.
Information after an event can alter memory. Conversations with police or others can contaminate what a witness thinks they saw.
Cross-racial identifications are less accurate. Studies consistently show that people have more difficulty accurately identifying individuals of a different race.
By embedding these scientific insights into jury instructions, Gomes transformed how jurors evaluate eyewitness testimony.
Why Gomes Matters for Massachusetts Criminal Defense
For Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers, Gomes is a vital tool in building an identification defense. It allows the defense to demand instructions that help jurors understand why an eyewitness might be mistaken.
Before Gomes:
Jurors were simply told to use their “common sense” in evaluating identification testimony. This often led jurors to overvalue confidence and underestimate the risk of error.
After Gomes:
Jurors are explicitly told about the limits of human memory and the factors that can lead to mistaken identification. This levels the playing field and gives the defense a stronger chance to persuade jurors that the identification is unreliable.
The Science Behind the Decision
The SJC’s ruling in Gomes was influenced by a growing body of research showing that eyewitness error is the leading cause of wrongful convictions. According to the Innocence Project, more than 70% of DNA exonerations nationwide involved mistaken identifications.
The Court was also influenced by reports from psychologists and legal scholars, including the National Academy of Sciences, which documented how stress, poor viewing conditions, suggestive police procedures, and post-event information can distort memory.
By requiring judges to incorporate these insights into jury instructions, Massachusetts became one of the leading states in reforming identification law.
How Gomes Affects Criminal Cases in Massachusetts
1. Motions to Suppress Identifications
Defense lawyers can use Gomes to argue that suggestive identification procedures—like photo arrays or show-ups—make identifications unreliable and should be excluded.
2. Jury Instructions
At trial, the defense can now demand scientifically accurate jury instructions to ensure jurors don’t automatically trust eyewitness testimony.
3. Cross-Examination
Gomes arms defense lawyers with powerful cross-examination strategies. Lawyers can challenge eyewitnesses on stress levels, lighting conditions, time between event and identification, and potential contamination of memory.
4. Appeals and Post-Conviction Relief
For cases tried before Gomes, defense lawyers may be able to argue that outdated instructions deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
The Broader Impact of Gomes
The decision in Gomes was part of a larger shift in Massachusetts criminal law. The SJC has consistently shown willingness to integrate scientific research into its rulings, particularly in areas like eyewitness identification, juvenile sentencing, and forensic evidence.
For defense lawyers, this means there is a growing body of case law that supports using science to challenge traditional assumptions in criminal trials.
For clients and families, it means that Massachusetts courts now recognize what science has long told us: eyewitnesses can be wrong, and wrongful convictions must be prevented.
Real-World Implications for Defendants
If you or a loved one is facing a case that hinges on eyewitness identification—whether it’s a shooting in Boston, a robbery in Brockton, or an assault anywhere in Massachusetts—the lessons from Gomes could make the difference between conviction and acquittal.
A skilled defense lawyer will:
File motions to challenge unreliable identifications.
Demand jury instructions that reflect the latest science.
Educate the jury on why eyewitness confidence does not equal accuracy.
Highlight the dangers of suggestive police procedures.
Conclusion
Commonwealth v. Gomes stands as one of the most important Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decisions in modern criminal law. By requiring judges to instruct jurors on the science of memory and identification, the Court has made trials fairer and reduced the risk of wrongful convictions.
For Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers, Gomes is both a shield and a sword—protecting defendants from unfair identifications and empowering lawyers to use science to dismantle unreliable testimony.
Call to Action
If you or someone you care about is charged with a crime in Massachusetts, and the case depends on eyewitness testimony, do not leave your future in the hands of mistaken memory. As experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers, we understand the science of identification and how to challenge it in court.
Call today for a confidential consultation. We defend serious cases in Boston, Brockton, and across the Commonwealth, and we will fight tirelessly to protect your freedom.