When Delays in Evidence Disclosure Leads to Case Dismissals—And Why the Appeals Court Reversed in Commonwealth v. Trepania
By Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP
Boston-area Criminal Defense Lawyers Specializing in Drug Crimes, Gun Crimes, Sex Crimes, and Serious Felonies
Introduction: Why This Case Matters
The Massachusetts Appeals Court’s July 31, 2025 decision in Commonwealth v. Tyler J. Trepania is an important reminder of how evidence disclosure rules, speedy trial rights, and judicial discretion interact in criminal cases. It’s also a cautionary tale for defense attorneys and prosecutors alike: late disclosure of key evidence—like DNA test results—can change the trajectory of a case, but courts still have limits on the sanctions they can impose.
For anyone facing criminal charges in Brockton, Boston, or anywhere in Massachusetts, understanding the lessons from this case could mean the difference between dismissal and conviction.
Case Overview
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
Date: July 31, 2025
Charges: Three counts of indecent assault and battery (G. L. c. 265, § 13H)
Key Issues:
Late disclosure of DNA evidence by the Commonwealth
Trial delays
Sanctions under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 (discovery violations)
Speedy trial rights under Rule 36
The trial judge dismissed the charges after the prosecution disclosed DNA evidence late in the case. The Appeals Court reversed, ruling that dismissal was not appropriate because there was no finding of irremediable harm to the defendant.
Timeline of the Case
October 7, 2020 – Complaint issued.
February 2021 – Defendant arraigned.
March 17, 2022 – Final pretrial hearing; prosecution claims all discovery complete—no mention of DNA evidence.
April 2022 – New prosecutor discloses DNA evidence from the alleged victim’s neck and seeks defendant’s DNA sample.
June 21, 2022 – Judge allows DNA sample collection but sanctions Commonwealth: all time after March 17, 2022 counts against it for speedy trial purposes.
August 15, 2022 – DNA comparison results disclosed.
November 25, 2022 – February 2, 2023 – Defendant requests continuances, eventually setting trial for March 20, 2023.
March 20, 2023 – Defendant files motion to dismiss based on Rule 36 and the prior sanction order.
Trial Judge Ruling – Dismisses case, citing Commonwealth’s “inattention” and speedy trial violation.
Appeals Court Decision – Reverses dismissal, finding abuse of discretion.
The Legal Issues in Plain English
1. Rule 14 – Discovery Violations
Rule 14 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the prosecution to turn over certain evidence to the defense in a timely manner. This includes scientific test results like DNA.
In Trepania, the prosecution had DNA evidence months before trial but didn’t disclose it until April 2022—after the final pretrial conference. The trial judge found this was a violation of Rule 14.
Why it matters: Late disclosure can undermine the defense’s ability to prepare, especially when expert review is needed.
2. Rule 36 – Speedy Trial Rights
Rule 36 requires that a criminal defendant be brought to trial within one year of arraignment, excluding certain periods of delay. If the Commonwealth fails to do this, the charges must be dismissed—unless the delay is attributable to the defense.
The judge in Trepania imposed a sanction that all time after March 17, 2022 counted against the Commonwealth for speedy trial purposes, regardless of what happened later.
Why it matters: Rule 36 has detailed rules for calculating excludable time. Judges can’t just decide to “count” time without following the rule’s framework.
3. Dismissal as a Sanction
Under Massachusetts law, dismissal with prejudice is a last resort. It is only justified when:
There is egregious prosecutorial misconduct, and
The defendant suffers irremediable harm to their right to a fair trial.
In Trepania, the judge found no prejudice from the delay in disclosing DNA evidence. The Appeals Court emphasized that without prejudice, there’s no legal basis for dismissal.
Appeals Court’s Key Reasoning
No Irremediable Harm – The defense still had seven months before trial to hire an expert and respond to the DNA evidence.
Improper Rule 36 Analysis – The trial judge did not calculate actual excludable time or consider the defense’s own requests for delay.
Judges Can’t Circumvent the Rules – A sanction under Rule 14 can’t override Rule 36’s specific speedy trial calculation requirements.
Lessons for Defendants and Defense Lawyers
If you are facing charges in Brockton, Boston, or anywhere in Massachusetts:
1. Demand Discovery Early
Don’t wait for the Commonwealth to hand over critical evidence. File motions to compel discovery promptly and follow up.
2. Document Prejudice
If evidence is disclosed late, be prepared to explain exactly how it impacts your defense—lost witnesses, missed testing opportunities, or inability to investigate leads.
3. Be Strategic with Continuances
Your own requests for delays can count against your speedy trial claim. In Trepania, the defense agreed to and even requested trial dates, undermining the argument for dismissal.
4. Understand Sanctions
Judges can exclude evidence, give jury instructions about missing evidence, or impose other sanctions—but dismissal is rare without serious harm to the defense.
How This Applies Beyond Sex Crime Cases
While Trepania involved indecent assault and battery charges, the principles apply equally to drug crime cases—including trafficking cocaine, possession with intent to distribute, and distribution near a school zone.
In drug cases, late disclosure of:
Lab testing results
Drug weight calculations
Chain of custody records
…can be just as critical as DNA evidence in a sex case.
Our Firm’s Approach in Brockton & Boston Courts
At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we:
Track all discovery deadlines and hold prosecutors accountable.
File aggressive motions to suppress evidence obtained in violation of your rights.
Challenge drug weight and lab analysis in trafficking and possession cases.
Fight for dismissal where late disclosure or other violations have caused real prejudice.
We practice regularly in:
Brockton District Court
Plymouth Superior Court
Boston Municipal Court
Suffolk Superior Court
…and federal court when drug charges cross into federal jurisdiction.
Potential Defenses in Late Evidence Cases
If you’re charged with a serious felony or drug offense in Massachusetts, late disclosure can support defenses such as:
Motion to Exclude Evidence – Keeping the late-disclosed evidence out of trial.
Continuance for Preparation – Buying time to hire experts or conduct your own testing.
Adverse Inference Instruction – Asking the judge to tell the jury they can view the late disclosure as unfavorable to the prosecution.
Motion to Dismiss – In rare cases where the harm is irreparable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: If the prosecution hides evidence, is my case automatically dismissed?
A: No. Dismissal is rare and only happens if the delay causes irreparable harm to your right to a fair trial.
Q: In drug cases, how is “weight” calculated for trafficking charges?
A: In Massachusetts, the total weight of the mixture counts, not just the pure drug content.
Q: What if my lawyer agreed to a trial delay?
A: Delays you agree to or request generally count against you for speedy trial purposes.
Q: Can I get bail reduced if my trial is delayed?
A: Possibly—judges can reconsider bail if trial delays are substantial and not your fault.
The Takeaway for Massachusetts Defendants
The Trepania decision makes one thing clear:
Judges must follow the rules for speedy trial and discovery sanctions, and dismissal is only on the table if the defense can prove actual, irremediable harm.
For defendants in Brockton, Boston, and surrounding areas, this means:
You need a lawyer who knows the rules inside and out.
You must be proactive in seeking and reviewing discovery.
Strategic decisions about continuances and motions can make or break your case.
Call Us:
If you’re facing drug trafficking, sex crime, or other serious felony charges in Massachusetts, you need a defense team that understands both the letter of the law and how to leverage it in court. Call Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP today for a confidential consultation.
We serve clients in Brockton, Boston, and throughout Massachusetts.