No retrial in overturned 1984 homicide/armed robbery case, DA Hayden announces

BOSTON, December 6, 2022 — Suffolk District Attorney Kevin Hayden announced today that his office will not seek a retrial of Floyd Hamilton, convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery in the 1984 shooting death of Efrain DeJesus and robbery of Bienvenido DeJesus in Boston.

Hayden in October announced he would not seek a retrial of Hamilton’s co-defendant, Joseph Pope, also convicted of first-degree murder and other charges in the case.  Both Hamilton and Pope had their convictions overturned earlier this year based on findings that prosecutors failed to provide exculpatory information to the men’s defense teams.

Hamilton was convicted in 1987 and Pope was convicted in 1986.

“As in the Joseph Pope case, we conducted a thorough review of all existing material and evidence and gave full consideration to each of the parties involved, including the families of the victims, the trial witnesses and the defendant.  We reached the same conclusion we did with Mr. Pope: To move forward with a new trial would not be in the best interest of justice,” Hayden said.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUFFOLK, SS.                                                 SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT

                                                                   NO.    8484CR48883

COMMONWEALTH

V.

FLOYD HAMILTON

NOLLE PROSEQUI

Now comes the Commonwealth in the above captioned matter and respectively states that it will no longer prosecute the above-captioned indictment.

As grounds therefor, the Commonwealth respectfully asserts the following:

1.    On August 15, 1984, a Suffolk County Grand Jury returned the above-referenced indictment charging the defendant Floyd Hamilton, AKA Albert Brown (hereinafter “the defendant”) – with first degree murder, armed robbery, and possession of a shotgun and a second indictment charging co-defendant Joseph Pope, – with first degree murder, and armed robbery for the May 23, 1984, shooting death of Efrain DeJesus and armed robbery of Bienvenido DeJesus.

2.    In 1985, the defendants were tried together before a Suffolk County jury, but the deliberating jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict and a mistrial was declared. 

3.    In 1986, on the eve of trial, the matters were severed after the defendant was allowed to proceed pro se and his request for a continuance was allowed. The Commonwealth elected to proceed to trial against Joseph Pope where he was found guilty of first degree murder under the theory of felony murder and armed robbery. 

4.    Steele, J., sentenced the co-defendant to state prison for life without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Pope’s conviction on direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Pope, 406 Mass. 581 (1990).

5.    In May of 1987, the defendant, Floyd Hamilton, was convicted by a Suffolk County jury of first degree murder and armed robbery and was acquitted of possession of a shotgun. 

6.    Welch, J., sentenced the defendant to state prison for life without the possibility of parole with a concurrent sentence of 35-45 years committed on the armed robbery. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Hamilton’s conviction on direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 411 Mass. 313 (1991).

7.    At each trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence that on May 23, 1984, the defendant and Pope arrived at the home of Efrain and Bienvenido DeJesus to meet with Efrain DeJesus regarding the sale of cocaine. Bienvenido DeJesus testified that Hamilton shot and killed Efrain DeJesus with a shotgun and that Joseph Pope, with whom Bienvenido DeJesus was familiar with from work, committed an armed robbery of Bienvenido DeJesus by putting a handgun to his head and stealing approximately $12 in U.S. currency from Bienvenido DeJesus.

8.    On February 22, 2021, the Honorable Judge Squires-Lee denied the co-defendant’s Rule 30 Motion for Postconviction Relief. The co-defendant filed a timely appeal.

9.    On June 7, 2022, the Supreme Judicial Court allowed the co- defendant’s appeal, ordering a new trial for the co-defendant due the Commonwealth’s failure to provide exculpatory evidence.  Commonwealth v. Pope, 489 Mass. 790 (2022).

10.  The Supreme Judicial Court found the Commonwealth failed to provide to the co-defendant several exculpatory inconsistent statements of Bienvenido DeJesus as well as names and addresses of potential witnesses that were contained in two documents prepared by Assistant District Attorney Robert Goodale.

11.  On October 24, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a Nolle Prosequi in the co-defendant’s matter.

12.  On October 24, 2022, Judge Squires Lee allowed the Defendant’s Amended Motion for A New Trial, citing the Supreme Judicial Court’s Pope decision.  Judge Squires Lee found that after consideration of the pleadings the record appendix, the trial transcripts, and other materials filed on behalf of Hamilton and the Commonwealth, she did not find a reason to reach a different result in the defendant’s matter.

13.  The Commonwealth has considered a number of facts including (1) the lead investigators for the Boston Homicide Unit are deceased. These investigators may have been able to put in context the statements contained in the Goodale documents and would have been able to respond to an expected Bowden defense that their prior trial testimony did not address; (2) after a thorough search of the Boston Police Archives, the Boston Police Department has not been able to locate the original homicide investigative file; (3)  after an exhaustive search, the Boston Police Firearms Analysis Unit and Boston Police Crime Laboratory have not found the physical evidence connected to this investigation; (4) that the issues that led the Commonwealth to file  Nolle Prosequi in the Pope matter are identical to the issues in this case; and (5) that the defendant is now seventy years old and served thirty-seven years in prison before his release.

14.  While Bienvenido DeJesus is available to testify, the Commonwealth cannot adequately investigate or prepare the case for trial without access to the original investigators and investigative materials. 

15.  Consequently, and due to the passage of time, the Commonwealth’s ability to prove the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt is significantly impaired.

16.  The Commonwealth has reached this conclusion after a thorough and comprehensive review of the case.

17.  In view of the numerous legal and practical considerations set forth above, the filing of this nolle prosequi by the Commonwealth is appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted

For the Commonwealth

KEVIN R. HAYDEN 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

By: _______________________                      Jennifer J. Hickman

                                                                         Assistant District Attorney

                                                                         One Bulfinch Place

                                                                         Boston, MA  02114

                                                                         (617) 619-4212

Date: December 6, 2022

James Borghesani, Chief of Communications