More than 20 years after one of the bloodiest massacres in Boston’s history, the Supreme Judicial Court today upheld the convictions of two men for five counts of first-degree murder each, closing the book on a case that shocked the city, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.

“The convictions of NAM THE THAM and SINY VAN TRAN meant justice for the five men whose lives they took so brutally,” Conley said. “Today, the state’s highest court ruled that those convictions were won fairly, honestly, and ethically under the law. From the initial investigation through the epic 2005 trial until the last word of the last appellate brief was filed, a generation of police and prosecutors worked tirelessly to reach this point. I hope the decision brings some sense of finality to all the families this case touched.”

Tham (D.O.B. 10/13/58) and Tran (D.O.B. 9/9/57) were convicted in 2004 of the Jan. 12, 1991, executions of Chung Kand Luu, 26; Chung Wah Son, 58; Van Tran, 31; Man Cheung, 55; and David Quang Lam, 32, during an early morning card game in the basement of 85 Tyler St. Both men are serving consecutive life terms for those convictions.

The men were additionally sentenced to consecutive terms of additional terms of 19½ to 20 years for the attempted murder of Pak Wing Lee, who was shot in the head but miraculously survived and called for help – a desperate plea overheard by a New England Medical Center security guard who responded to the scene and called for help.

Among other things, the defendants claimed on appeal that the trial prosecutor was improperly inflammatory during an opening statement that called the incident “one of the worst and most violent days in the history of Boston”; that their cases should have been tried separately; and that certain airline records – suggesting that Tran, Tham, and a third man purchased plane tickets and left the United States together on Feb. 1, a few weeks after the murders – should not have been introduced as evidence.

“Here, the Commonwealth charged the defendantson a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty, and the prosecutor permissibly attempted to illustrate the magnitude of the crime,” Justice Robert Cordy wrote for the unanimous court in an 18-page decision. “Moreover, the statement ‘falls into the category of ‘enthusiastic rhetoric, strong advocacy, and excusable hyperbole,’ and is not grounds for reversal.’”
Of the shared trial, Cordy wrote that “[t]he defenses at trial were not mutually antagonistic and irreconcilable. Neither defendant presented a ‘sole defense’ based on the guilt of the other… Indeed, in important respects, Tran and Tham’s defenses were entirely consistent. Each pointed to evidence linking [a third man] to the killings, and vigorously impugned the percipient witness … suggesting both his involvement in the crime and motive to lie.”

The trial judge ruled amid the proceedings that the airline records would not be admitted for the jury’s consideration. Conley’s office sought review of that decision mid-trial, leading a single justice of the SJC to direct that the documents be admitted. The full bench concurred after the issue was raised in the defendants’ appeal.

The evidence at trial proved that Tham, a.k.a. “Johnny Cheung,” and Tran, a.k.a. “Toothless Wah,” were among three men who burst into the basement social club as the victims played cards. After ordering them to get down on the ground, the defendants executed them with point-blank gunshots to their heads. One man, Lee, survived and later acted as the star witness for the Commonwealth; a seventh was able to flee.
The third suspect, Hung Tien Pham, 45, a.k.a. “Hung Sook,” remains at large.

Law enforcement officials from across the globe pursued Tran, Tham, and Pham since Jan. 18, 1991, when Suffolk prosecutors approved warrants for their arrests. Federal warrants charging unlawful flight from prosecution for murder were issued on Feb. 15, 1991. They were arrested in the People’s Republic of China in 1998 and, after extensive diplomatic negotiations, returned to the United States in December 2001.

Assistant District Attorney David McGowan, formerly of Conley’s Appeals Division and now assigned to the Major Felony Bureau, argued in support of the defendants’ convictions. Former Suffolk prosecutor John E. Powers III tried the case to its convictions in 2005. Tham was represented on appeal by attorney Robert F. Shaw, Jr., and Tran was represented by attorney Janet Pumphrey.