## Facts

- After midnight on April 17, 1999, Kevin McCormack and Brian Porreca left a bar in Malden, Massachusetts and approached a car to travel with friends.
- Porreca saw Anthony Barry and Brian Cahill run toward the vehicle.
- Cahill went to the passenger side and fired an Uzi into the car, striking McCormack multiple times and hitting Porreca twice.
- Barry ran to the driver’s side and fired a handgun into the back of McCormack’s head.
- Porreca returned to the bar, contacted police, and later identified both defendants.
- Police recovered a .40-caliber pistol near the driver’s side; an Uzi was later recovered after being found nearby.
- The medical examiner testified McCormack died from multiple gunshot wounds and that two wounds (one to the head from a .40-caliber firearm and one to the back from another firearm) were each independently lethal.
- A jury convicted Barry and Cahill of murder in the first degree (including deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty) and related offenses, with the case resting largely on Porreca’s eyewitness testimony.
- The trial court denied each defendant’s postconviction motions for a new trial after evidentiary proceedings; the denials and convictions were appealed together.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence was sufficient to prove causation and guilt when the medical examiner could not identify which lethal wound was the ultimate cause of death.
2. Whether the Commonwealth violated Brady by suppressing favorable, material evidence concerning police reports, a confidential informant, or alternative suspects.
3. Whether alleged newly discovered evidence required a new trial.
4. Whether admitting DNA expert testimony based in part on testing performed by non-testifying analysts violated confrontation or due process.
5. Whether any courtroom closures violated the right to a public trial.
6. Whether alleged discovery failures amounted to a confrontation-clause violation.
7. Whether the defendants were entitled to disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity.
8. Whether relief was warranted under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 33E (new trial or reduction in degree of guilt).

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the murder convictions and affirmed the orders denying the motions for a new trial.
- The court held the evidence supported finding each defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of death because each inflicted an independently lethal wound.
- The court found no Brady violation because the defendants failed to show suppression of favorable, material evidence.
- The court upheld denial of a new trial, concluding the proffered evidence was not genuinely newly discovered or did not create real doubt about the verdict.
- The court held confrontation and due process were not violated by the DNA expert’s testimony where the expert offered an independent opinion and was subject to cross-examination.
- The court found no public-trial error requiring reversal and rejected claims that discovery issues implicated the confrontation clause.
- The court upheld denial of disclosure of the confidential informant’s identity for lack of a showing that the informant was a material witness or would provide significant exculpatory aid.
- After § 33E review, the court declined to order a new trial or reduce the degree of guilt.

## Legal Principles

- In Massachusetts homicide law, causation may be proven if the defendant’s conduct was a contributing and proximate cause of death; liability is not defeated by uncertainty about which of multiple independently lethal injuries was the final cause.
- Under Brady, a defendant must show suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defense that is material, meaning a reasonable probability exists that disclosure would have affected the result.
- A new trial based on newly discovered evidence requires showing the evidence was not reasonably discoverable at trial and that it casts real doubt on the justice of the conviction.
- Confrontation is satisfied where a testifying forensic expert provides an independent opinion based on data reasonably relied on in the field and is available for cross-examination; discovery shortcomings do not automatically convert into confrontation violations.
- Disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity is not required absent a showing that the informant is a material witness or that disclosure is necessary to a meaningful defense.
- Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 33E, the court may grant extraordinary relief in first-degree murder cases, but it will not do so absent error or other circumstances warranting a new trial or reduction.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the first-degree murder convictions and the denials of new-trial motions, holding that independently lethal acts by separate defendants support causation and murder liability, and finding no reversible error in Brady, confrontation, public-trial, discovery, informant-disclosure, or § 33E review.


Commonwealth v. Barry, 481 Mass. 388, 116 N.E.3d 554 (Mass. 2019)