Massachusetts SJC Holds DNA Testing Can Continue Even After a Defendant’s Death
In a significant decision affecting post-conviction litigation in Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court recently addressed an unusual but important question: What happens when a defendant who obtained a court order for DNA testing dies before the testing is completed?
In Commonwealth v. Shawn L. Tanner, decided February 27, 2026, the court held that a defendant’s death does not automatically invalidate a previously issued order for post-conviction DNA testing under Massachusetts law. Instead, the trial judge retains discretion to determine whether testing should continue.
The ruling highlights the broad remedial purpose of Massachusetts’ post-conviction DNA testing statute and reinforces a fundamental principle: the pursuit of truth in criminal cases does not always end when a defendant dies.
For criminal defense lawyers and those concerned about wrongful convictions, the decision represents an important reaffirmation that modern forensic technology should remain available when it may shed light on the identity of a perpetrator—even decades after a conviction.
This article explains the background of the Tanner case, the legal issues presented, the SJC’s reasoning, and what the decision means for future post-conviction litigation in Massachusetts.
The 1989 Murder Conviction
The case arises from a homicide that occurred in 1988 in a motel room in Bristol County.
The victim was found strangled with a stocking wrapped around her neck. The Commonwealth’s evidence at trial included testimony that the defendant, Shawn Tanner, admitted to a friend that he believed he had killed the woman after she refused to have sex with him because he had no money. According to that testimony, Tanner said he strangled her with his hands and then tightened a sock around her neck to ensure she was dead.
Tanner also allegedly showed the friend jewelry taken from the victim, some of which was later recovered by police.
At trial, however, Tanner offered a different version of events. He acknowledged that he had been with the victim in the motel room and had sexual intercourse with her in exchange for money. But he testified that she was alive when he left the room and claimed another man entered the room afterward.
The jury convicted Tanner of murder in the first degree and larceny in 1989. The Supreme Judicial Court later affirmed the conviction on direct review.
At the time of the investigation and trial, DNA testing was not yet widely available in forensic investigations. As a result, none of the biological evidence collected in the case—such as fingernail scrapings, hairs, towels, or the stocking used in the strangulation—was analyzed using modern DNA technology.
The Rise of Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Over the past several decades, advances in forensic science have dramatically reshaped criminal justice.
DNA testing has proven uniquely powerful in identifying perpetrators and exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals. Across the United States, hundreds of convictions have been overturned after DNA evidence demonstrated that the convicted person was not the perpetrator.
Recognizing this reality, Massachusetts enacted General Laws chapter 278A, which provides a legal mechanism for individuals convicted of crimes to obtain post-conviction forensic testing of biological evidence.
The statute was designed with a specific purpose: to remedy wrongful convictions by allowing access to new scientific techniques that were unavailable at the time of trial.
Under this statute, a defendant can request DNA testing if certain requirements are met, including:
• the person was convicted of a crime
• the person’s liberty has been restrained as a result of that conviction
• the person asserts factual innocence
• biological evidence exists that could potentially be tested
The process typically involves two stages: first, the court determines whether the statutory requirements are met; then it decides whether testing should actually occur.
Tanner Seeks DNA Testing Decades Later
More than thirty years after his conviction, Tanner sought to use the statute.
In 2022, lawyers working with the New England Innocence Project inspected evidence still stored by State police. Among the items preserved from the investigation were:
• the stocking used to strangle the victim
• fingernail scrapings
• hairs collected from the motel room
• towels and bedsheets
• rings taken from the victim
Tanner filed a motion requesting DNA testing of these items.
He acknowledged that his DNA might appear on the victim because he admitted being with her that night. But he argued that DNA from another individual could support his claim that someone else entered the motel room after he left and committed the murder.
If testing revealed DNA from an unknown person, it might potentially identify the actual perpetrator.
The prosecution raised only limited objections, including concerns that some evidence might have been contaminated because it had been handled during the trial.
Ultimately, the parties agreed to a court order allowing DNA testing. The testing was to be performed by an outside forensic laboratory, with the Innocence Project covering the cost.
A Complication: The Defendant’s Death
At the time the motion was filed, Tanner was suffering from terminal brain cancer.
He died in September 2022, only three months after the evidence was sent to a laboratory for testing.
Importantly, the testing had not yet begun. Delays had occurred because the State crime lab had not yet approved access to the national DNA database known as CODIS, which is often necessary for meaningful forensic comparisons.
Nearly a year after Tanner’s death, prosecutors asked the court to vacate the order authorizing DNA testing.
Their argument was straightforward: because the statute allows only living defendants to file a motion for testing, they claimed that the order became “null and void” once the defendant died.
If the Commonwealth were correct, the testing would never occur.
The Trial Judge Refuses to Cancel the Testing
The Superior Court judge rejected the prosecution’s request.
The judge denied the motion to vacate the testing order, essentially concluding that the testing could continue even though Tanner had died.
The Commonwealth sought review by the Supreme Judicial Court.
The central legal question became:
Does a post-conviction DNA testing order automatically expire when a defendant dies before the testing is completed?
The Supreme Judicial Court’s Decision
The SJC unanimously upheld the trial judge’s decision.
The court concluded that nothing in the DNA testing statute requires a judge to cancel testing simply because the defendant dies.
Instead, the statute is silent on the issue.
Because the Legislature did not include such a limitation, the court refused to read one into the law.
Standing to File vs. Authority to Continue Testing
The court first acknowledged that the statute restricts who can file a motion for DNA testing.
Only a living person whose liberty has been restrained by a conviction has standing to initiate the process.
But the SJC emphasized an important distinction.
Once a defendant validly obtains a testing order, the statute does not say that the order automatically disappears if circumstances change later.
In other words:
• the defendant must be alive to request testing
• but that does not necessarily mean testing must stop if the defendant later dies
This distinction proved crucial.
The Broad Purpose of the DNA Testing Law
The SJC also focused on the underlying purpose of the statute.
Massachusetts enacted the law to address the risk of wrongful convictions and to take advantage of advances in forensic science.
DNA testing, the court noted, has the ability both to exonerate the innocent and identify the guilty.
Automatically terminating testing because of a defendant’s death would undermine that goal.
Even if the defendant can no longer personally benefit from the results, the court observed that society still has an interest in discovering the truth about a crime.
That interest includes identifying possible third-party perpetrators.
The Statute Allows Testing in “Other Circumstances”
Another key part of the court’s reasoning came from language in the statute stating that it should not be interpreted to prohibit forensic testing “under any other circumstances.”
The SJC interpreted that phrase broadly.
According to the court, this language indicates that the Legislature did not intend the statute to be the exclusive means by which DNA testing could occur.
Therefore, the statute cannot reasonably be interpreted as automatically prohibiting testing after a defendant’s death.
Judges Retain Inherent Authority
Although the court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that testing must automatically end, it did recognize that circumstances had changed.
The defendant’s death meant he could no longer pursue a motion for a new trial based on the results.
Because of that change, the SJC concluded that judges retain inherent authority to reconsider or vacate a testing order if circumstances warrant.
However, such decisions are reviewed only for abuse of discretion.
That means appellate courts will generally defer to the trial judge unless the decision was clearly unreasonable.
Why the Judge Did Not Abuse His Discretion
Applying that standard, the SJC found that the trial judge acted well within his discretion in allowing the testing to continue.
Several factors supported that decision.
1. The defendant had fully satisfied the statute
Tanner met all the requirements for post-conviction DNA testing when he filed the motion and when the order was issued.
The Commonwealth never disputed that fact.
2. Everyone knew he was terminally ill
The judge was aware that Tanner had terminal cancer when he approved the testing request.
Thus, the possibility that Tanner might die before testing was completed was not unexpected.
3. The delay was not the defendant’s fault
The court emphasized that testing likely could have been completed before Tanner’s death if not for delays caused by the Commonwealth’s handling of the evidence.
For example, authorization to access the DNA database was delayed, and certain evidence had not been transmitted to the testing laboratory.
4. The testing cost the Commonwealth nothing
The Innocence Project agreed to pay for the testing, meaning the state bore no financial burden.
5. There was a public interest in the results
Perhaps most strikingly, the court noted that the case occurred during the same period as the unsolved New Bedford highway murders, a series of killings that remain unresolved.
DNA evidence from Tanner’s case could potentially shed light on those crimes or identify other perpetrators.
Family members of victims from those unsolved murders even filed briefs urging the court to allow the testing to continue.
A Decision Grounded in the Search for Truth
Ultimately, the SJC recognized that although Tanner himself could no longer personally benefit from the results, the potential benefits to the justice system remained significant.
DNA testing might:
• reveal the identity of a different perpetrator
• clarify the historical record
• assist in solving other crimes
• provide answers to victims’ families
For these reasons, the court concluded that the judge’s decision to allow testing to continue was entirely reasonable.
Why This Decision Matters
The Tanner ruling is important for several reasons.
1. It reinforces the remedial purpose of DNA testing laws
The decision confirms that Massachusetts courts will interpret the DNA testing statute broadly in order to facilitate access to potentially exculpatory evidence.
2. It acknowledges society’s interest in truth
Even after a defendant dies, the criminal justice system has a continuing interest in identifying the real perpetrator of a crime.
3. It protects the integrity of long-standing testing orders
Prosecutors cannot simply undo a valid testing order because circumstances changed after it was issued.
4. It highlights the importance of preserving evidence
Cases like Tanner demonstrate why maintaining biological evidence for decades can be critically important.
Modern forensic methods may reveal information that was impossible to detect at the time of trial.
Lessons for Criminal Defense Lawyers
For defense attorneys handling post-conviction cases, Tanner offers several practical lessons.
First, the decision underscores the importance of preserving and investigating physical evidence even many years after a conviction.
Second, it highlights the strategic value of DNA testing motions under G.L. c. 278A, particularly in older cases where forensic technology has advanced significantly since trial.
Finally, the ruling reinforces that courts remain open to considering the broader societal value of forensic testing, even when traditional post-conviction remedies may no longer be available.
Conclusion
The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Tanner reflects a clear commitment to the principles underlying post-conviction DNA testing laws.
By holding that testing orders do not automatically expire when a defendant dies, the court recognized that the search for truth in criminal cases does not end with a defendant’s death.
DNA evidence has the power not only to correct wrongful convictions but also to identify the true perpetrators of crimes and bring answers to victims’ families.
In cases where modern science may still provide those answers, Massachusetts courts have signaled that they will allow the pursuit of that truth to continue.