BOSTON, Jan. 9, 2013—The state’s highest court today affirmed the convictions of two men in an armed home invasion that lead to the murders of 20-year-old roommates Roland Chow and Karen Young in their Mission Hill apartment, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.

The Supreme Judicial Court today upheld the 2006 convictions of TERRANCE BROWN (D.O.B. 7/12/81) and NATHAN RIVERA (D.O.B. 5/19/81) on two counts of first-degree murder for the 2001 homicides, two counts of armed assault in a dwelling, and single counts of armed home invasion, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Rivera was additionally convicted of armed assault with intent to murder attempting to shoot a third roommate after running out of ammunition.

In upholding the convictions, the Supreme Judicial Court rejected an argument by Brown that police were required to inform him during an interview that a lawyer obtained by his family had requested police not speak with the defendant. Police did stop the interview to inform Brown that the lawyer claiming to represent him had called police and was on his way to the station, however Brown choose to continue speaking with police.

While police have the responsibility to inform a suspect when a lawyer has told police to instruct the suspect not to speak, the SJC in today’s decision ruled that police are not required to abide by an attorney’s request that law enforcement not speak with a suspect.

“We conclude that an attorney telling the police to tell the defendant not to talk to the police is not the same thing as an attorney telling the police not to talk to the defendant; one is legal advice aimed at the defendant, the other is an attempt by the attorney to invoke his client’s right to silence,” Justice Robert J. Cordy wrote in the 15-page decision.

The decision draws a distinction between this finding and that of a 2010 ruling that police must convey an attorney’s advice that a suspect under arrest not speak to them.

“[W]e decline to extend [that 2010 decision] to a situation where the attorney merely instructs the police not to talk to his client,” Cordy wrote.

The SJC also rejected Brown’s claim that he was not able to properly present at trial his argument that he withdrew from the joint venture crime before the murders occurred. While he admitted to police that he was present at the Dorchester apartment where the murders occurred and bound the victims with duct tape, he claimed that he left before the victims were shot.

“Brown bound all three victims, rendering them defenseless during the commission of an armed home invasion and drug robbery,” Cordy wrote. “He knew that at least one victim, Karen Young, had recognized him and Rivera and identified Rivera by name, which provided Rivera with an increased motive to kill the victims even if he had not planned to do so originally. In the face of these facts, simply leaving the apartment prior to the trigger being pulled does not create a sufficient basis for a jury to conclude that Brown had withdrawn from the venture prior to the murders. Indeed, at that point, the home invasion – which the jury found as a predicate felony for the felony-murder conviction – had already been completed, with Brown’s full participation.”

Rivera argued in the appeal that the right to confront his accuser at trial was violated when jurors were presented with redacted statements Brown made to police in which a second person is implicated in the shootings and home invasion. The justices determined that the redacted version of the statements that was presented at trial did not implicate Rivera specifically.

“Brown’s redacted statement incriminates Rivera only to the extent that the jury accept the other evidence against him that places him at the scene,” the high court wrote. “This will be the case in virtually any joint trial in which such a statement is admitted.”

Suffolk County homicide prosecutors proved at trial that Brown and Rivera stormed into the Parker Hill Avenue apartment looking for drugs and cash. During the robbery, Young recognized Rivera, asking, “”Nathan, is that you? Why are you doing this? We grew up together.”

Young was shot in the head six times, while Chow was shot in the head once. The shooter ran out of ammunition before attempting to shoot the surviving victim, who was able to free himself and call police after the assailants left the apartment.

Rivera and Brown were each sentenced to two consecutive life sentences after trial. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court Department later reduced Brown’s consecutive sentences to two concurrent life sentences. Neither will ever be eligible for parole.

Assistant District Attorney Teresa Anderson of Conley’s Appellate Division argued the case in front of the SJC. Assistant District Attorney Dennis Collins, now assigned to the Bristol DA’s office, prosecuted the case at trial. Brown was represented by Charles K. Stephensen. Rivera was represented by Stephen Paul Maidman.

–30–

All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.