Justice Revisited: The Court Grants a New Trial in Commonwealth v. Stephen A. Pina
A Powerful Reminder of the Correctability of Criminal Verdicts
In a monumental ruling issued on February 3, 2025, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Peter B. Krupp allowed a motion for new trial in the case of Commonwealth v. Stephen A. Pina, vacating a 1996 first-degree murder conviction that had stood for nearly 30 years. The decision is a stunning example of how new science, suppressed evidence, and evolving legal standards can force a court to confront the possibility that “justice may not have been done.”
The ruling unearths disturbing flaws in the trial and investigation, including suppressed mental health information about a key eyewitness, failures to disclose third-party culprit evidence, and newly available DNA analysis that undermines the prosecution’s case. The outcome is a vital read for anyone interested in wrongful convictions, prosecutorial disclosure obligations, or the ever-evolving science around eyewitness identifications.
Background: A Murder in Mission Hill
On February 26, 1993, Keith Robinson, a 26-year-old known drug dealer, was shot and killed in Boston’s Mission Hill housing project. He died from gunshot wounds to the eye, chest, and thigh. Stephen Pina, also known to sell drugs in the area, was eventually arrested and charged with first-degree murder. The prosecution’s case relied entirely on eyewitness testimony. There was no physical evidence connecting Pina to the murder—no fingerprints, no video, and no weapon linkage.
Pina’s first trial in 1995 ended in a hung jury. At his second trial in January 1996, he was convicted. He’s been serving a life sentence since.
The Motion for New Trial: Four Explosive Claims
In his third motion for a new trial, filed decades later, Pina asserted four primary grounds:
New DNA Evidence excluded him as a contributor to material from the murder weapon and the victim’s jacket.
Brady Violations: The Commonwealth failed to disclose crucial police reports implicating other suspects—specifically, individuals connected to the stolen murder weapon and a nearby robbery earlier that day.
Eyewitness Credibility: The prosecution’s key witness, Debra Annas, was psychiatrically hospitalized at the time of trial—information never disclosed to the defense.
Scientific Advances in eyewitness identification undermine the reliability of the two trial witnesses, particularly given Annas’ psychiatric disorders and substance abuse history.
Judge Krupp found the cumulative effect of these issues so damaging to the fairness of Pina’s trial that he vacated the conviction.
The Witness Withheld: Mental Illness and Nondisclosure
One of the most damning aspects of the ruling centers on Debra Annas, one of two eyewitnesses who identified Pina as the shooter.
At the time of trial, Annas was under commitment at Taunton State Hospital after a suicide attempt and had a long history of serious psychiatric diagnoses, including borderline personality disorder and polysubstance abuse. She was transported from the hospital under a writ of habeas corpus to testify.
This was never disclosed to the defense.
Had the defense known about Annas’ psychiatric confinement, it could have:
Cross-examined her about her mental state,
Requested her hospital records,
Presented expert testimony on how her diagnoses could impair memory and perception.
As Judge Krupp wrote, the nondisclosure “deprived the defense of material avenues of attack” and undermined the integrity of the conviction.
Suppressed Evidence: Another Suspect, Another Car, Another Gun
Then came the third-party culprit evidence. According to police reports never shared with the defense:
Earlier the same day, a man matching Robinson’s description allegedly committed a robbery on Annunciation Road.
The victim of that robbery said he’d handle it himself—possibly foreshadowing retaliation.
A maroon Nissan Maxima was stolen that evening by three men using a gun.
Two weeks later, the stolen Nissan was found—with Brian Johnson inside—along with a co-defendant, Anthony Woods.
Who is Brian Johnson? The man who previously possessed the murder weapon.
Even more disturbing: Johnson had a fresh scar over his right eye when arrested—consistent with the robbery victim seen bleeding from that same area earlier in the day.
At trial, the judge prevented defense counsel from introducing evidence that Johnson had once possessed the murder weapon. But the new evidence—Johnson driving a stolen car matching the description seen near the shooting, with a visible head injury—would have strongly supported both a Bowden defense (police failure to investigate other leads) and a third-party culprit theory.
Judge Krupp found that these links “defy logic” as mere coincidences.
DNA Evidence: Science Casts Doubt
When the murder weapon and Robinson’s jacket were tested in 2015 using new probabilistic genotyping techniques (not available in 1996), Pina was excluded as a DNA contributor.
In 2018 and again in 2022, further analysis with the TrueAllele system confirmed that:
DNA on the grip and barrel of the revolver did not match Pina,
DNA on the lapel and hood of Robinson’s jacket—grabbed during the attack—did not match Pina.
While DNA evidence alone may not prove innocence, in a case with zero forensic evidence linking Pina to the crime, this absence becomes powerful. It reinforces the defense’s argument that someone else held the gun and grabbed Robinson’s jacket.
Eyewitness Identification: Then vs. Now
At trial, the only two witnesses who identified Pina—Hall and Annas—gave conflicting accounts:
One saw no car; the other did.
One heard no argument; the other described a heated exchange.
One described the shooter grabbing the jacket; the other didn’t.
Hall initially told police he was only “60% sure” about Pina’s identity. Under current law, such equivocal identifications could not support an in-court ID.
Since Commonwealth v. Gomes (2015), Massachusetts juries receive specific instructions on the factors that can affect memory and identification—lighting, stress, race, weapon focus, and more. These concepts were nonexistent in jury instructions at Pina’s trial.
On top of that, new research indicates that people with borderline personality disorder or long-term drug use histories are particularly prone to memory distortions—directly relevant to Annas’ credibility.
Legal Standards: Rule 30(b) and What Counts as "Justice"
Under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b), a judge may grant a new trial “if it appears that justice may not have been done.”
This ruling is not about perfection. It’s about fairness.
The court considered:
Whether new evidence would have likely influenced a jury,
Whether the prosecution withheld crucial information,
Whether forensic advances cast doubt on key trial evidence.
Importantly, Judge Krupp emphasized that even if no single issue warranted relief, the combined effect created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Key Takeaways for Practitioners and the Public
1. Disclosure of Mental Health Matters in Witnesses
If a key witness is being psychiatrically hospitalized during trial, that must be disclosed. Prosecutors and police cannot hide this under the label of “incarceration.”
2. Third-Party Culprit Evidence Must Be Investigated and Shared
Where another person is known to have possessed the murder weapon and was arrested in a car linked to the crime, failure to disclose that connection undermines the adversarial process.
3. DNA Exclusion Matters—Especially When There's Nothing Else
DNA exclusion alone may not exonerate, but in a case with no physical evidence, it becomes a crucial rebuttal to uncorroborated eyewitnesses.
4. Science and Eyewitness Memory: The Law is Evolving
As courts grow more sophisticated in understanding the limitations of human memory, old convictions based solely on eyewitness testimony are increasingly vulnerable.
Conclusion: A New Trial is Justice, Not a Technicality
In Commonwealth v. Pina, the court took a long, hard look at a decades-old conviction and made a courageous decision: to acknowledge that the system failed to give the defendant a fair trial. The ruling doesn’t declare Pina innocent. But it does recognize that justice is a process, not just a verdict.
After nearly 30 years behind bars, Stephen A. Pina now has a chance to do what every defendant deserves: confront the evidence against him in a courtroom where all the facts—old and new—are finally on the table.
Need help evaluating a motion for new trial based on suppressed evidence or eyewitness misidentification? Our office specializes in post-conviction litigation and criminal appeals across Massachusetts. Contact us to review your case today.