Major SJC Ruling in Commonwealth v. Goparian
When facing a serious criminal charge like first-degree murder, the stakes could not be higher. Your freedom—and in Massachusetts, in a capital case, potentially your life—is on the line. A recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in Commonwealth v. Donovan E. Goparian, SJC-13391 (July 23, 2025), highlights how the justice system handles claims of withheld exculpatory evidence and requests for a new trial. For anyone searching for a Boston murder attorney or a Boston-area violent crime lawyer, this case is a powerful reminder of why meticulous investigation, aggressive motions practice, and a deep understanding of constitutional rights are essential.
Case Overview: Allegations and Conviction
The case began with a gruesome discovery on November 4, 2015. A Worcester resident heard a loud bang near a secluded dirt road and soon saw flames in the woods. Firefighters responding to the 911 call found a burning vehicle, and inside, the charred body of Marie Martin. Dental records confirmed her identity. An autopsy revealed a bullet lodged in her skull near the cheekbone.
Investigators focused on Donovan E. Goparian. The Commonwealth alleged that Marie Martin had asked a mutual acquaintance, Thomas Hogan Jr., to “beat up” or even kill her ex-boyfriend, eventually arranging to meet Goparian in a park near Webster Lake. The prosecution claimed that Goparian instead killed Martin and set her car on fire.
The Commonwealth’s case rested heavily on the testimony of three witnesses with significant credibility problems:
Thomas Hogan Jr. – Initially lied to police, later became a cooperating witness.
Heidi Thompson – Goparian’s girlfriend, who admitted lying during her initial police interview.
William “Billy” Goparian-McElhinney – The defendant’s nephew, who also admitted to misleading police.
The jury convicted Goparian of first-degree murder on a theory of deliberate premeditation in 2020. He was sentenced to life without parole.
The Key Post-Trial Development: A Third-Party Culprit
After the conviction, defense attorneys learned about potential third-party culprit evidence involving Billy. A federal inmate, Vito Nuzzolilo, claimed that in a 2018 proffer session with federal prosecutors and Worcester police, Billy admitted to burning the victim’s car and destroying the murder weapon. According to Nuzzolilo, when asked if he shot the victim, Billy hung his head—something Nuzzolilo interpreted as a silent admission.
Even more compelling, Nuzzolilo told defense counsel that Billy had also said Goparian “was not responsible for that girl’s” death.
This information was never disclosed to the defense before or during trial.
Brady Violations and the Duty to Disclose
Under Brady v. Maryland and Massachusetts law, prosecutors must disclose all exculpatory evidence in their possession or in the possession of the prosecution team—including police officers working the case. This duty extends to:
Direct exculpatory evidence suggesting someone else committed the crime.
Impeachment evidence undermining the credibility of key prosecution witnesses.
The SJC emphasized that even if police or prosecutors believe a witness is “not credible,” the decision about credibility belongs to the defense and ultimately the jury—not the government. In this case, Worcester Detective Mark Richardson was listed as attending the 2018 proffer session. He later emailed the prosecutor saying that the proffer witness “basically said we had the wrong guy and that Billy was the right guy.”
The prosecution never turned over that email or the substance of the proffer to the defense.
The Defense Motions: New Trial and Discovery
Motion for a New Trial
Goparian’s attorneys argued that the Commonwealth’s failure to disclose the Nuzzolilo information violated his right to a fair trial. They asked for:
An evidentiary hearing to present testimony from trial counsel, Detective Richardson, and possibly Nuzzolilo.
Post-conviction discovery of all records related to the 2018 proffer.
The trial judge denied the requests without holding an evidentiary hearing and without ruling on the post-conviction discovery motion.
The SJC’s Decision: Rare Reversal for New Hearing
The SJC held that this was “that rare case” where the denial of an evidentiary hearing was an abuse of discretion.
Why the Court Reversed
Seriousness of the Issue – Third-party culprit evidence is constitutionally significant because it supports the defendant’s right to present a complete defense.
Adequate Showing by the Defense – The defense presented credible evidence that:
Detective Richardson was part of the prosecution team and had direct knowledge of the proffer.
The undisclosed evidence implicated Billy as the possible killer.
Timely disclosure could have changed trial strategy, including presenting a third-party culprit defense.
Credibility Assessments Belong at a Hearing – The trial judge improperly discounted Nuzzolilo’s statements without live testimony, relying on law enforcement opinions about his credibility.
Post-Conviction Discovery Granted
The SJC also ruled the trial judge should have granted discovery of all documents related to the proffer. The defense had already uncovered one key email through a public records request, suggesting more undisclosed materials could exist.
What This Means for Defendants in Massachusetts Murder Cases
For anyone accused of a violent crime in Massachusetts, especially homicide, this decision underscores several critical points:
The prosecution must disclose all exculpatory information held by any member of the prosecution team—including police detectives involved in the investigation.
Defense attorneys must aggressively pursue third-party culprit evidence and challenge any nondisclosure.
Evidentiary hearings are crucial when new evidence surfaces that could materially affect the outcome of the trial.
Post-conviction discovery can be a lifeline to uncover hidden or overlooked evidence.
How an Experienced Attorney Would Approach This
As experienced Boston-area murder attorneys, our approach in a case like this involves:
Early and Broad Discovery Requests – We draft targeted Brady motions and Rule 14 requests to cover any cooperation agreements, proffer session notes, and law enforcement communications.
Independent Investigation – We interview witnesses, track down potential third-party culprits, and seek out corroborating evidence.
Aggressive Pretrial and Post-Trial Litigation – If the prosecution fails to disclose evidence, we pursue sanctions, evidentiary hearings, and new trial motions.
Jury-Focused Strategy – We frame third-party culprit evidence in a way that resonates with jurors, emphasizing reasonable doubt.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Worcester
Although Commonwealth v. Goparian arose in Worcester County, the SJC’s decision applies statewide. For violent crime lawyers in Boston and across Massachusetts, the ruling reinforces that:
Police participation in federal investigations doesn’t shield exculpatory evidence from disclosure.
Credibility judgments by law enforcement do not replace the prosecutor’s duty to disclose.
Even in cases with strong circumstantial evidence, nondisclosure of third-party culprit evidence can warrant a new trial.
If You or a Loved One is Charged with Murder in Massachusetts
Being charged with murder or any violent felony is life-altering. The consequences of a conviction are severe—life without parole in a first-degree murder case. And as Goparian shows, wrongful convictions can and do happen when critical evidence is withheld.
An experienced Boston-area murder attorney will:
Challenge every aspect of the prosecution’s case.
Demand full compliance with constitutional and statutory discovery rules.
Pursue every avenue—before and after trial—to secure your rights.
Call for a Free Consultation
If you are facing murder charges or another serious violent crime, do not wait. Early intervention by a skilled criminal defense lawyer can make the difference between conviction and freedom.