Charlie Buttrey

October 11, 2024

In December of 1974, Peter Sulfaro was shot and killed in his Massachusetts shoe repair shop in the course of an armed robbery.  His fifteen-year-old son Paul was the only witness.

Subsequently, three men were convicted of armed robbery and first-degree murder, one of whom was Raymond Gaines.  There was no physical evidence to tie Gaines to the scene of the murder. Instead, prosecutors relied on Paul Sulfaro’s eyewitness identification of Gaines, testimony from one David Bass and other witnesses, who placing Gaines in Bass’ apartment near the scene of the crimes shortly after the robbery, and Gaines’ confession to Boston police Detective Peter O’Malley, which was overheard by a Boston police sergeant.

Gaines sought post-conviction relief four times. Finally — some 48 years after Gaines’ conviction — a judge has granted his request for a new trial. The court did so for three coextensive reasons. One, modern eyewitness identification science “significant undercuts all three pieces of evidence” relied upon by the prosecution at trial. Two, prosecutors never disclosed potentially exculpatory evidence (specifically, notes generated by Boston police officers regarding the reliability of Paul Salfano’s eyewitness testimony). Three, the prosecution never disclosed both that Bass was facing pending charges during Gaines’ trial and that he recanted his testimony after Gaines was convicted.

Last month, Massachusetts’ highest court affirmed the lower court order, so Gaines will get the trial he has asked for.

And it only took 48 years.

© 2020 Charlie Buttrey Law by Nomad Communications