Will Shanon Burgess’s College Credential Issue Lead to Other Cases Being Reopened?

It has been an interesting couple of days in the prosecution of Karen Read. Read is being prosecuted in connection with the death of Boston Police Department Officer John O’Keefe, with the prosecution recently calling expert witness Shanon Burgess to testify to try to make its timeline of the crime work. During Burgess’s testimony, however, it has come to light that Burgess’s educational background has been misstated on his LinkedIn profile. It also appears that it was misstated on a CV submitted in a federal court case in Texas. Specifically, on LinkedIn and the CV, it was claimed that Burgess had a college degree that he does not have in a major that the college in question does not offer. All of this has led me to speculate that some of the cases in which Burgess has testified could be reopened. So, is there precedent is support of that claim?

A key case that gives a lay of the land is United States v. Jones, 84 F.Supp.2d 124 (D.D.C. 1999). In Jones, Raymond A. Jones Jr. was convicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin. At trial, the prosecution had “offered expert witness testimony from its ‘resident narcotics expert’…, Detective Johnny St. Valentine Brown.”

Following the trial’s conclusion, Detective Brown’s credentials were questioned in an unrelated matter. Particularly it was learned that Detective Brown, who on many occasions in the past has held himself out as having a degree in pharmacology, was in fact the holder of no such degree. On September 30, 1999, Jones moved for a new trial…, arguing that because his conviction rest[ed] on Brown’s expert witness testimony, which would not have been heard by the jury had it been known that Brown had fabricated his expert qualifications in the past. Defendant state[d] the interests of justice require a new trial.

In reversing Jones’s conviction, the court ruled as follows:

The evidence that Brown lied in a deposition about his education and expert witness qualifications would certainly have been impeaching of Brown’s credibility. More than that, though, the evidence would have kept Brown from taking the stand at all. It is clear to this Court, and the government apparently concedes, that Detective Brown would not have been a witness if government counsel knew that over the years Brown lied about his credentials. The issue that remains is whether Brown’s testimony was material. Brown’s testimony filled in all of the gaps of the government’s case and was clearly material to the jury’s determination. Without Brown’s testimony, the independent evidence against Jones is highly circumstantial. Jones’ offering of “Party with the stars” to Officer Cutler is damning because Brown identified “Party with the stars” as a brand of heroin. Jones was not caught with drugs in his possession—rather he had $25.00. Possession of U.S. currency is not evidence of a crime in this case without Brown’s testimony that a small bag of heroin costs between $20 and $25. Officer Cutler observed Jones receive some amount of currency, but could not testify as to what Jones apparently sold because the buyer (and item sold) were not recovered.

Brown’s testimony alone allowed the jury to imply that Jones received $25 for the sale of a small bag of heroin. Although Jones was observed in possession of the stash in the stairwell at 651 Morton Street, there was no fingerprint evidence connecting Jones to the heroin. Officer Cutler’s two prior run-ins with Jones only evidence an intent to distribute heroin with Brown’s expert testimony on the brand names and how the drug trade operates. The Court finds that Brown’s testimony was material to Jones’ conviction—indeed, the only difference between this trial and the earlier trial that ended in a hung jury was the addition of Brown’s expert testimony.

The government maintains that the jury would have reached the same verdict “even if it had substantially discounted Detective Brown’s testimony.” The government’s position here misses the point. The new evidence is not merely that Brown lied under oath in a civil deposition. The true facts discovered, Brown resigned from the police department. Had that evidence been available at the time of Jones’ trial, it is inconceivable that Brown would have been offered as a witness by the government. Indeed, at oral argument the government conceded this point.

The Court finds that in the interests of justice, for the reasons stated above, a new trial in this matter is required. The Court is mindful of the problem now facing the government in the many cases where Detective Brown gave expert witness testimony on the drug trade in this city. The government is concerned that a grant of new trial in this case may have a precedential effect in those other cases.1 This Court is permitted only to consider this case, on the facts before it.

I need to dig deeper to find out what happened in the wake of the court’s ruling. A Washington City Paper article from 2000 (“False Witness”) notes how numerous defendants convicted of drug crimes sought to have their convictions overturned on similar grounds. But I’m not sure how many of these defendants also had their convictions reversed.

So, what does this mean for other cases in which Burgess testified? If it can be proven that his credentials were misstated at those trials and that his testimony was critical to securing convictions, there should be grounds for granting relief to those defendants.

-CM