Overview

A criminal conviction is not the end of the road. For many clients, appellate and post-conviction litigation provide a critical opportunity to correct legal errors, challenge unconstitutional proceedings, and seek meaningful relief.

Masferrer & Riley represents clients at every stage of appellate and post-conviction review. Our attorneys have litigated cases before all levels of the Massachusetts state and federal judiciary—including the Supreme Judicial Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. We are frequently retained after trial or plea to evaluate appellate options, identify reversible error, and litigate complex legal issues before appellate courts. Our appellate work is grounded in deep trial-level experience and meticulous attention to the record, allowing us to spot issues others miss and present them with clarity and force.

Direct Appeals

On direct appeal, we conduct a comprehensive review of the entire trial-court record, including pretrial motions, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and trial transcripts. We identify and develop the strongest legal issues for appellate review, including constitutional violations, evidentiary errors, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims. Our attorneys are experienced brief writers and oral advocates who understand how appellate courts analyze error and assess prejudice.

Motions for New Trial & Post-Conviction Relief

In many cases, appellate strategy must be coordinated with post-conviction litigation in the trial court. Motions for a new trial allow defendants to present additional evidence outside the trial record—such as newly discovered evidence, affidavits, or expert testimony—and can be essential to developing claims that cannot be resolved on direct appeal alone.

Masferrer & Riley regularly litigates post-conviction matters, including motions for new trial, motions to revise or revoke sentence, challenges to guilty pleas, and related collateral proceedings. We advise clients on the sequencing of appeals and post-conviction motions to preserve claims and maximize the likelihood of relief.

Appellate Strategy & Trial-Level Support

Our appellate experience also informs our trial-level advocacy. We are often consulted by trial counsel to brief and argue dispositive legal motions, preserve appellate issues, and provide strategic guidance on complex legal questions that may shape the course of a case. This collaboration strengthens the record and positions cases for success—both at trial and on appeal.

Amicus Advocacy

Appellate courts do more than resolve individual cases—they shape the law that governs future prosecutions, trials, and constitutional protections. Masferrer & Riley regularly engages in amicus curiae advocacy to ensure that appellate courts fully appreciate the broader legal, constitutional, and real-world consequences of the issues before them.

We have drafted and filed amicus briefs on behalf of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (“MACDL”) and the Committee for Public Counsel Services (“CPCS”) in cases presenting significant questions of criminal law and procedure, including at the U.S. Supreme Court. In that role, we help articulate the defense bar’s institutional perspective, drawing on collective experience from courtrooms across the Commonwealth to inform appellate decision-making. Our amicus work often addresses issues of first impression or unsettled law, with an emphasis on constitutional safeguards and fairness in criminal proceedings.

In addition to MACDL and CPCS matters, we are available to represent organizations and individuals seeking to participate as amici in criminal appeals where the outcome may have systemic implications.

Representative Appellate Matters

Our attorneys have briefed and argued significant wins before the Supreme Judicial Court, including:

  • Commonwealth v. Mercedes, 496 Mass. 164 (2025) (holding that the state constitution prohibits the police from executing an “anticipatory search warrant”—a warrant that anticipates a triggering event authorizing a search—absent compliance with the future triggering event, regardless of whether the allegations in the affidavit support probable cause).

  • Commonwealth v. Davis, 487 Mass. 448 (2021) (reversing client’s conviction and holding that trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting untested GPS speed evidence, while reaffirming that courts must rigorously scrutinize the reliability of technological evidence before it can be used to secure a criminal conviction).

  • Commonwealth v. Nash & Elibert, 486 Mass. 394 (2020) (strengthening protections for incarcerated defendants during COVID-19 pandemic by holding that pandemic risks must be weighed to favor, not undermine, stays of sentence and reversing orders that improperly revoked stays based on fluctuating COVID-19 data).

  • Commonwealth v. Christie, 484 Mass. 397 (2020) (holding that the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic—and associated health risks to incarcerated individuals—constitutes a changed circumstance sufficient to support reconsideration of a defendant’s motion to stay execution of sentence pending appeal, ensuring client’s immediate release).

  • Commonwealth v. Feliz, 481 Mass. 689 (2019) (holding that automatic imposition of GPS monitoring is unconstitutional and individualized consideration is required, striking down state statute to the contrary, and ordering GPS device removed from client).

  • United States v. Pineda-Mateo, 905 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2018) (holding that the spousal testimonial privilege has no “joint participant” exception, so prosecutors cannot compel one spouse to testify against another even when both are alleged co-conspirators).

  • Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 573 (2015) (affirming suppression of drug evidence where police orchestrated a minor traffic stop and arrest to trigger an “inventory” search that was a pretextual drug investigation and thus unconstitutional).

  • Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 468 Mass. 174 (2014) (holding that telling a noncitizen defendant he would be merely “eligible for deportation” after pleading guilty a drug offense was constitutionally inadequate under Padilla because deportation was virtually automatic, and affirming withdrawal of the plea based on deficient advice and resulting prejudice).