The Case of Commonwealth v. David Roman: Self-Defense or Murder?

Mar 24

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's recent decision in Commonwealth v. David Roman (Docket SJC-13348) brings to light crucial legal issues in homicide law, self-defense claims, evidentiary disputes, and prosecutorial conduct. In a case centered on 76 stab wounds, a self-defense claim, and allegations of extreme atrocity or cruelty, Roman’s conviction of first-degree murder was upheld despite arguments for insufficient evidence, ineffective counsel, and improper evidentiary rulings.

This blog post explores the key facts, legal issues, and implications of this case, as well as why the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) declined to overturn the conviction or reduce the verdict.

The Facts: A Deadly Encounter or a Justifiable Killing?

On the evening of May 9, 2015, Southbridge police arrived at the home of Joseph Stanick to conduct a well-being check. They discovered Stanick’s naked and blood-covered body at the top of his staircase. The autopsy later confirmed 76 stab wounds, including 34 to the neck, as well as blunt force trauma to the head.

The investigation led to David Roman, who admitted to killing Stanick but claimed it was in self-defense. Roman and Stanick had met online and exchanged sexually explicit messages before meeting in person at Stanick’s home. Roman claimed that during their second meeting, Stanick became aggressive, demanding anal sex and attempting to attack him with a knife. Roman alleged he grabbed the knife in self-defense and repeatedly stabbed Stanick to protect himself.

However, prosecutors painted a different picture. The blood evidence showed a struggle throughout multiple rooms of the house, and forensic analysis suggested Stanick was repeatedly stabbed long after he was incapacitated. Additionally, after the killing, Roman disposed of Stanick’s cell phone, stole jewelry and antiques from the house, and attempted to sell them.

These facts led to Roman’s indictment for first-degree murder based on extreme atrocity or cruelty.

Key Legal Issues and Defense Challenges

Roman appealed his conviction, raising multiple arguments, including insufficient evidence for first-degree murder, improper admission of his confession, prejudicial prosecutorial conduct, and errors in jury instructions.

1. Was There Enough Evidence for First-Degree Murder?

Roman’s self-defense argument was the centerpiece of his appeal. In Massachusetts, the prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt by showing at least one of the following:

The defendant did not actually believe he was in immediate danger.
A reasonable person would not have believed deadly force was necessary.
The defendant failed to use reasonable means to escape before resorting to deadly force.
The defendant used excessive force.

The court found the evidence strongly favored the prosecution’s case:

76 stab wounds, with 34 to the neck, suggested overkill rather than defensive action.
Minimal injuries to Roman—while Stanick was brutally stabbed.
Roman admitted he continued stabbing because he was “pissed”.
Concealment efforts—disposing of Stanick’s phone and selling his property—were viewed as consciousness of guilt.

Legal Precedent: The court cited Commonwealth v. Grassie, 476 Mass. 202 (2017), which held that excessive violence and disproportionate force negate a self-defense claim.

2. The Confession: Was Roman’s Statement Voluntary?

A major part of the prosecution’s case was Roman’s recorded confession, in which he admitted to the killing but framed it as self-defense. Roman did not move to suppress this confession before trial, leading to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

The defense argued that police coerced Roman’s confession by implying it was in his best interest to cooperate. However, the court found:

Roman was read his Miranda rights and voluntarily waived them.
He was coherent, rational, and articulate throughout the interrogation.
The detectives used persuasive, but not coercive tactics.

Since voluntary confessions are admissible under Massachusetts law, the court ruled the confession was properly admitted.

Legal Precedent: The court relied on Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 460 Mass. 199 (2011), which outlines the “totality of circumstances” test for evaluating whether a confession was voluntary.

3. Prosecutorial Misconduct: Did the Commonwealth Cross the Line?

Roman argued that the prosecution’s opening and closing arguments improperly appealed to emotion and disparaged the defense.

Key allegations:

The prosecutor portrayed Stanick as a lonely victim of a violent predator, invoking sympathy from the jury.
The defense was called a “smoke screen”—suggesting it was a dishonest legal strategy.
The prosecutor speculated that Roman carried a knife because he was a fisherman, despite no evidence supporting that claim.

While the court acknowledged some statements may have been inappropriate, they ruled that these did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.

Legal Precedent: The court applied Commonwealth v. Grier, 490 Mass. 455 (2022), which allows emotive language in closing arguments as long as it is based on evidence.

4. Bad Act Evidence: Was It Fair to Bring Up Roman’s Past?

Roman challenged the admission of a restraining order filed by his ex-wife, arguing it prejudiced the jury by painting him as violent. The trial judge initially excluded it, but Roman’s own lawyer accidentally opened the door during cross-examination.

Additionally, evidence that Roman stole from Stanick after killing him was introduced to show consciousness of guilt.

The SJC ruled both pieces of evidence were properly admitted under Commonwealth v. Philbrook, 475 Mass. 20 (2016), which allows bad act evidence if it is relevant to motive or consciousness of guilt.

5. Jury Instructions: Did the Judge Misstate the Law?

Roman argued that the jury instructions misstated the law on mitigating circumstances and self-defense. Specifically:

The judge incorrectly suggested the defense had to “prove” mitigating circumstances.
The judge’s explanation of general intent was unclear.

While the court recognized some minor misstatements, it ruled that the instructions as a whole were accurate and that any errors were harmless.

Legal Precedent: The court applied Commonwealth v. Lynch, 439 Mass. 532 (2003), which holds that jury instructions are reviewed in totality, not in isolation.

6. Motion to Reduce the Verdict Under G. L. c. 278, § 33E

Massachusetts law allows the SJC to reduce a murder conviction if the verdict is disproportionate or excessive. Roman’s legal team argued the severity of the sentence should be reduced.

However, the court refused, citing:

Extreme brutality of the attack.
Lack of any real evidence supporting self-defense.
Post-killing behavior (theft, concealment of evidence, and inconsistent statements).

Under Commonwealth v. Melendez, 490 Mass. 648 (2022), the court ruled the sentence fit the crime.

Final Ruling: Conviction Affirmed

The SJC upheld Roman’s conviction and denied his request to reduce the verdict.

Key Takeaways from Commonwealth v. Roman

✅ Self-defense claims must be credible—excessive force undermines the defense.
✅ Confessions made voluntarily, even if obtained by persuasive tactics, are admissible.
✅ Prosecutors can use strong rhetoric, but excessive appeals to sympathy or speculation are risky.
✅ Jury instructions must be carefully worded, but minor misstatements do not automatically warrant reversal.
✅ The Massachusetts SJC is reluctant to reduce murder convictions unless there is clear evidence of mitigating factors.

Implications for Future Cases

This case reinforces Massachusetts’ high burden on self-defense claims and the broad discretion given to prosecutors. It also highlights the importance of pretrial motions—had Roman’s attorney moved to suppress his confession, the outcome may have been different.

Joshua Wood