Commonwealth v. Jurczuk: When an Uncalled Expert Can Trigger a New Evidentiary Hearing

In criminal cases, juries often decide between two competing stories: what happened, and why it happened. When the dispute turns on medical causation—how a person died—expert testimony can be the difference between guilt and reasonable doubt. A recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, Commonwealth v. Jurczuk (24-P-896), highlights just how much is at stake when defense counsel retains an expert, promises the jury that expert will testify, and then does not call the expert at trial.

The decision is also a practical reminder for postconviction litigation: even when a defendant cannot obtain an affidavit from trial counsel explaining a strategic decision, the absence of that affidavit does not automatically defeat an ineffective-assistance claim. Where the record reveals inconsistencies that deserve a closer look, and where an expert affidavit supplies a concrete alternative explanation of the events, a defendant may be entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

The Underlying Case: A Jail Cell Fight and a Disputed Cause of Death

The case arose from a fight inside the Suffolk County House of Correction. The defendant, Lesley Jurczuk, fought with his cellmate, Alexander Callahan. Callahan later died. The Commonwealth’s theory was that Jurczuk beat Callahan to death in their cell. Jurczuk’s defense was that he acted in self-defense and that Callahan died accidentally—during the struggle—when he fell and struck a hard surface in the cramped cell.

At trial, medical evidence was central. The Commonwealth presented a medical examiner who testified that Callahan suffered significant blunt-force trauma to the head and internal injuries to the neck. The medical examiner opined that the cause of death was blunt injuries to the head and neck. The defense argued that the Commonwealth’s cause-of-death analysis was incomplete and promised jurors that a retained forensic pathologist, Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, would testify that the death could have resulted from a fall during the altercation and that the Commonwealth could not prove Jurczuk inflicted the fatal injuries.

But the defense did not call Dr. Laposata.

The jury convicted Jurczuk of voluntary manslaughter.

The Postconviction Claim: A Promised Expert Who Never Took the Stand

Years later, Jurczuk filed a motion for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The centerpiece allegation was that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Dr. Laposata after telling the jury they would hear from her. The claim mattered because the dispute at trial was not only who started the fight, but what caused the death—and whether the death was accidental or the product of an assault.

The initial postconviction filings ran into a common obstacle: the defendant did not provide affidavits from either trial counsel or Dr. Laposata. A motion judge denied the request for a hearing and denied relief. Postconviction counsel sought reconsideration and asked for an evidentiary hearing, but still did not submit affidavits from trial counsel or the expert. The motion judge again denied reconsideration and refused to order a hearing, reasoning that counsel’s decision not to call the expert appeared tactical and not manifestly unreasonable.

The Turning Point: The Expert Affidavit Arrives

After new counsel entered the case, the defendant obtained an affidavit from Dr. Laposata and asked the Appeals Court for permission to file it in the trial court as part of renewed reconsideration efforts. The Appeals Court granted that request.

Dr. Laposata’s affidavit did what the earlier filings could not: it set out, in a concrete and specific way, what her testimony would have been and why it mattered. She stated she had been retained before trial, reviewed the case materials, and came to court prepared to testify. According to her affidavit, trial counsel told her she was not needed.

More importantly, she provided a materially different opinion on cause of death. She disputed the Commonwealth’s medical examiner on key points and offered an alternative sequence consistent with the defense theory: the decedent’s fatal injury occurred during a fall in the second round of fighting, possibly involving impact with the table near the cell door, resulting in neck trauma and asphyxia rather than death from a beating.

The Appeals Court’s Holding: A Hearing Is Required

The Appeals Court consolidated the defendant’s appeals and focused on the question that decides many postconviction cases: whether the defendant has raised a “substantial issue” requiring an evidentiary hearing.

The court held that Dr. Laposata’s affidavit raised a substantial issue as to whether trial counsel’s decision not to call her was “manifestly unreasonable,” especially given that counsel promised the jury her testimony in opening. The affidavit also undermined the motion judge’s rationale for denying a hearing, because it suggested that the medical evidence was not one-sided and that the defense expert’s opinions could have supported a not-guilty verdict.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court vacated the denial of the renewed reconsideration motion on the ineffective assistance issue and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing where the trial court can hear from witnesses, including trial counsel and Dr. Laposata.

A Practical Lesson: Missing Trial Counsel Affidavits Are Not Always Fatal

A key takeaway from the decision is procedural but important. In postconviction litigation, defendants often struggle to obtain affidavits from trial counsel. Sometimes trial counsel is unavailable; sometimes counsel declines; sometimes counsel is understandably reluctant to create a record suggesting ineffective representation.

The Appeals Court reaffirmed that while the absence of a trial counsel affidavit can matter, it does not automatically defeat an ineffective assistance claim. Where the record shows inconsistencies that require a closer look, and where the defendant supplies credible material—like an expert affidavit—showing that an uncalled witness could have mattered, a hearing may be required.

Why This Case Matters

Commonwealth v. Jurczuk matters because it highlights the real-world consequences of strategic decisions at trial. When a defense team retains a qualified expert, builds a defense around the expert’s expected testimony, and tells the jury the expert will testify, the decision not to call that expert can become the central issue years later.

The case also underscores a broader point: postconviction litigation is often won or lost on evidentiary support. If the claim is that an uncalled expert would have changed the trial, the defendant usually needs the expert to say—clearly—what the testimony would have been and why it could have made a difference.

Q&A:

What was the main issue in Commonwealth v. Jurczuk?

The main issue was whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a retained forensic pathologist, after promising the jury the expert would testify, and whether that claim required an evidentiary hearing.

Why did the Appeals Court order an evidentiary hearing?

Because the defense later submitted an affidavit from the retained expert that raised a substantial issue that counsel’s decision not to call her may have been manifestly unreasonable and potentially outcome-determinative.

Do defendants always need an affidavit from trial counsel to win a hearing?

Not always. The absence of a trial counsel affidavit does not automatically defeat a claim where other credible materials and the trial record create inconsistencies warranting further inquiry.

Why is expert testimony so important in cause-of-death cases?

Because the jury’s verdict can turn on whether the Commonwealth proves causation beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when an alternative explanation like accident is supported by expert opinion.

Call to Action

If you or a loved one is facing serious criminal charges in Massachusetts—or exploring options after a conviction—experience and strategy matter. Call Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP at (508) 897-0001 to schedule a consultation.

If you want, I can also produce: