Nearly forty years after his arrest, Edward Wright has finally won a ruling that upends one of Massachusetts’ longest-standing contested convictions. In April 2025, a state superior court judge vacated Wright’s 1985 murder conviction, finding that prosecutors suppressed critical evidence and that a lead detective testified falsely about the integrity of the crime scene.
The decision exposes deep flaws in a case that once seemed unassailable—a case built on forensic impressions that, decades later, have crumbled under scrutiny. It also joins a growing list of Massachusetts convictions overturned because of official misconduct and mishandled evidence, particularly from the pre-DNA era.
A Conviction Reexamined
Wright was convicted in the 1985 stabbing death of a young woman in her Boston apartment. At the time, prosecutors told jurors that a bloody shoeprint at the scene matched Wright’s footwear and that only law enforcement had entered the apartment after the body was found.
That narrative helped secure a life sentence. No confession, no eyewitness, and no motive linked Wright directly to the crime—just the physical evidence and the detective’s assurance of its pristine chain of custody.
But four decades later, that foundation has collapsed.
The Hidden Report and the False Testimony
The newly uncovered police report—buried for decades—shows that the victim’s apartment was broken into after the murder but before evidence collection was complete.
That means the shoeprint and blood evidence introduced at trial were discovered only after the unauthorized entry. Investigators never told the defense or the jury. Instead, the detective in charge testified that “no one other than police personnel” had entered the scene prior to evidence gathering.
The court’s April 2025 order called that statement “blatantly false” and “materially misleading.” The ruling stopped short of finding perjury but made clear that the testimony was knowingly untrue—a direct violation of constitutional disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland and due-process protections articulated in Napue v. Illinois.
“Had the jury known the scene was compromised, the evidentiary weight of the shoeprint would have been drastically reduced,” the judge wrote. “The defense’s ability to test both credibility and contamination was destroyed by the state’s nondisclosure.”
DNA Adds to the Doubt
Although the court’s decision rested on misconduct, new DNA testing reinforced the finding of unreliability. Wright was excluded from multiple items, including a bloody washcloth and samples from around the kitchen area.
While the ruling did not depend on those tests, they magnified the central question: if Wright’s DNA wasn’t on the key items—and if the supposed forensic link was discovered after a break-in—what evidence remained to sustain the original verdict?
Forensic specialists say this is precisely why scene integrity is the linchpin of credible science. “Once outsiders enter a scene, everything downstream is suspect,” said one Massachusetts crime-lab consultant. “You can’t rebuild confidence in evidence that’s already been compromised.”
Alternative Suspect Evidence Ignored
For decades, Wright’s appeals included evidence pointing toward the victim’s former boyfriend, a man who had allegedly made violent threats, given a false alibi, and attempted to sell a knife shortly after the killing. Witnesses even reported hearing boastful admissions that matched details from the crime scene.
Those allegations never gained traction—largely because courts viewed them as speculative and because prosecutors insisted the physical evidence tied Wright, not anyone else, to the scene.
Now, with the revelation that the shoeprint evidence arose after an undisclosed break-in and under a false narrative, that calculus has changed. The court’s opinion described the cumulative record as one that “undermines confidence in the integrity of the original investigation.”
Why It Matters
The Wright ruling is more than a local correction—it’s a case study in how hidden reports and misleading testimony can distort a trial. When the state withholds exculpatory information, the defense cannot challenge flawed science or expose compromised evidence.
Jurors in Wright’s trial never learned that the crime scene had been disturbed, that the key detective’s statements were false, or that the physical evidence appeared only after contamination. That silence was fatal to fairness.
“The integrity of evidence is not a technicality,” the judge wrote. “It goes to the heart of a fair trial.”
Patterns and Systemic Warning Signs
Legal analysts say the Wright case reveals recurring dangers in older prosecutions, especially those built on pre-DNA forensic claims. The systemic factors include:
-
Suppressed or lost reports documenting scene contamination.
-
False or misleading testimony by investigators or experts.
-
Racial bias in jury selection or trial framing, common in 1980s Massachusetts cases.
-
Overreliance on a single forensic link—often shoeprints, fibers, or serology—without corroboration.
-
Institutional resistance to reopening convictions even after new science emerges.
“These aren’t isolated errors,” said a Boston legal historian who has studied overturned convictions. “They’re symptoms of an era when narrative certainty outweighed scientific precision.”
What Comes Next
Although the conviction has been vacated, the story is not over. The district attorney’s office has filed notice of appeal, seeking review of the misconduct finding. Wright’s attorneys have moved for his immediate release, arguing that further incarceration cannot be justified under a tainted record.
If the ruling stands, prosecutors must decide whether to retry the case—an outcome many observers see as improbable given the age of the evidence and the court’s credibility findings.
Even if an appeal proceeds, the 2025 decision effectively dismantles the forensic foundation that once sustained the prosecution. For the first time in four decades, Wright stands on the brink of freedom.
Broader Lessons
Wright’s exoneration effort echoes a national reckoning with police and prosecutorial transparency. From Massachusetts to Illinois, courts are confronting how nondisclosure and false confidence in contaminated evidence have fueled wrongful convictions.
The case reinforces a principle at the core of due process: truth in evidence handling is not optional. Every undisclosed report, every misleading statement, risks turning justice into fiction.
