Eyewitness Misidentification, DNA Evidence, and the Fight for a New Trial in Massachusetts
As Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers, one of the most important battles we fight is against the power of eyewitness testimony. Jurors tend to trust a confident identification, but modern science has shown—over and over again—that eyewitness identifications can be wrong. A recent unpublished Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, Commonwealth v. Lebert (July 30, 2025), illustrates just how critical the science of identification can be in seeking justice for defendants in Boston, Brockton, and across the Commonwealth.
The Case in Brief
Michael Lebert was convicted in 2014 of armed assault with intent to murder and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after a brutal attack at a neighborhood bar. The victim testified that a man entered the bar, struck her with a hatchet, and brutally assaulted her. Later, after being shown multiple sets of photographs over the course of the investigation, she identified Lebert as her attacker.
At trial, Lebert represented himself for part of the proceedings, though standby counsel eventually presented his defense. The key evidence against him was the victim’s identification—there was no clear DNA link, and his defense was alibi. He was convicted.
Years later, advances in DNA testing and eyewitness identification science provided grounds for a motion for a new trial. The Appeals Court has now vacated the denial of that motion and ordered an evidentiary hearing.
The Identification Defense: What Changed?
At the time of Lebert’s trial in 2014, Massachusetts courts had not yet fully embraced the emerging science of eyewitness misidentification. That changed with the Supreme Judicial Court’s landmark ruling in Commonwealth v. Gomes (2015), which recognized five key principles about identification:
Memory is not like a video recording.
A witness’s confidence does not equal accuracy.
Stress can dramatically reduce accuracy.
External information can influence memory.
Prior exposure to a suspect reduces reliability of later identifications.
These principles are now part of standard jury instructions—but Lebert’s jury never heard them. In fact, the victim in his case had been shown 150–200 photos without identifying anyone, before later being presented with Lebert’s picture. When she saw him, she had a powerful emotional reaction. Under today’s understanding, that prior exposure and emotional state raise serious red flags about reliability.
In 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court clarified in Commonwealth v. Mercado that this science counts as “newly discovered evidence” for defendants tried before Gomes. That ruling opened the door for Lebert, whose case rested almost entirely on the victim’s identification.
The DNA Evidence
The physical evidence was equally contested. Police collected blood, glass, and the hatchet used in the assault. Initial testing found the victim’s DNA as the major profile and inconclusive results for the minor profile. Defense experts argued Lebert was excluded as a contributor.
Years later, new testing with probabilistic genotyping software (STRMix) yielded different results. State police scientists claimed Lebert was included as a contributor when assuming four DNA profiles, but defense experts argued the data supported only three profiles—and in that model, Lebert was excluded. This clash underscores how critical forensic science has become in modern identification defense.
While the Appeals Court did not rule directly on the DNA issue, it acknowledged that DNA evidence combined with the identification science raised substantial questions about the fairness of the conviction.
Waiver of Counsel: A Side Issue
Lebert also argued that his waivers of counsel were invalid and that representing himself was a structural error. The Appeals Court rejected this claim, finding that judges conducted sufficient colloquies to ensure he understood the risks. Still, the fact that he navigated a serious trial partly without counsel highlights the importance of effective representation in complex identification cases.
What This Means for Defendants and Families Across Massachusetts
For anyone facing serious charges in Boston, Brockton, or elsewhere in Massachusetts, Lebert is a reminder that:
Eyewitness testimony is not infallible. Emotional certainty and dramatic in-court identifications can be wrong.
The science of identification matters. Courts now recognize that psychological research casts doubt on identifications made under stress, after repeated photo viewings, or with suggestive procedures.
DNA testing evolves. New software and private lab analysis can reveal weaknesses in the prosecution’s case even years later.
Post-conviction relief is possible. Even after a conviction and appeal, Massachusetts law allows defendants to challenge unreliable identifications and forensic conclusions through motions for a new trial.
Identification Defense in Massachusetts
Identification cases are common throughout Massachusetts, particularly in urban centers like Boston and Brockton, where police often rely on witness identifications when forensic evidence is thin. But as cases like Lebert and Mercado demonstrate, juries need to hear the full story—both the science of how identifications can fail and the forensic testing that may exclude a defendant entirely.
If you or a loved one is facing charges where identification is at issue, it is essential to work with a defense team that understands not only the law but also the science. An effective Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer will challenge flawed identification procedures, bring in expert testimony on the science of memory, and push back against overstated forensic claims.
Conclusion
Commonwealth v. Lebert is a powerful example of how advances in science can change the trajectory of a criminal case. The Appeals Court recognized that jurors in 2014 did not have access to the same understanding of eyewitness reliability that jurors do today. By granting an evidentiary hearing, the court has opened the door to a fuller examination of the evidence.
For defendants, families, and defense attorneys alike, the lesson is clear: challenging identifications is not just possible, it is necessary—and the science is on our side.
Take Action Now: Protect Your Future
If you or someone you love has been accused of a serious crime in Massachusetts, whether in Boston, Brockton, or anywhere else in the Commonwealth, you cannot afford to let questionable eyewitness identifications or shaky forensic evidence decide your fate. The courts are finally recognizing what science has long told us—memory is fragile, identifications can be mistaken, and juries must hear the truth.
Don’t wait until it’s too late. Our defense team understands how to challenge unreliable identifications, expose weaknesses in DNA and forensic claims, and fight tirelessly for your rights at every stage—from trial to appeal to post-conviction relief.
Call us today for a confidential consultation. The stakes are too high to leave your future in the hands of flawed science or mistaken witnesses.