BOSTON, Oct. 26, 2016— The second of two men convicted in the drive-by shooting that killed 21-year-old Fausto Sanchez almost a decade ago will remain in prison after the state’s highest court today denied his appeal, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court today affirmed the conviction of JOSEPH GOMES (D.O.B. 4/20/67) in the 2007 Roslindale shooting that killed Sanchez.  A jury in 2010 convicted Gomes of first-degree murder, four counts of armed assault with intent to murder, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, and single counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.  He was sentenced to life in prison followed by an additional term of 17 to 18 years.

The SJC last year affirmed the convictions of Gomes’ co-defendant and nephew, EMMANUEL DASILVA (D.O.B. 10/24/84), whom a separate jury convicted of identical charges in the retaliatory shooting.  Juries found that the men worked in concert to fire upon a group of men, including Sanchez, in retaliation for an earlier incident in which the victims had no involvement.

In his appeal, Gomes argues that the trial judge erred in allowing certain testimony and questioning of witnesses; in not allowing a requested jury instruction; and in the introduction of certain testimony.  In a decision written by Justice Margot Botsford, the SJC rejected each of these arguments, finding no error or abuse of discretion by the trial judge.

“This defendant, like his convicted confederate, received a fair trial based on the facts, the evidence, and the law,” Conley said. “An innocent victim paid the ultimate price for their choice to use deadly violence on a residential street. Thanks to the tireless work by Suffolk prosecutors and Boston Police homicide detectives from start to finish, the jury called that murder, and I hope Mr. Sanchez’ loved ones can take some comfort in the finality this decision brings them.”

Among his arguments, Gomes claimed that jurors should not have heard about evidence collected during the execution of a search warrant at the home of family members where an earlier shooting occurred.  The justices found that the testimony was relevant and that the judge properly instructed the jury on the purposes for which the information could and could not be used.

“The trial judge admitted the evidence challenged by the defendant for the limited purpose of proving the defendant’s knowledge, motive, or intent. The evidence was relevant with respect to all three of these issues, where the Commonwealth’s theory was that the defendant (and [Dasilva]), based on loyalty to family and friends, sought to retaliate against [their intended target] for [the target’s] pursuit of [the defendants’ relative] and the family members’ subsequent disruption and loss of valuable items (the cash, guns, and drugs in the basement) due to police action in response to the incident,” Botsford wrote. “This evidence was more than sufficient to permit a reasonable fact finder to infer that the defendant knowingly participated in the shooting incident and had or shared an intent to kill one or more of the young men standing in the group near [the target’s] rented Maxima.”

Gomes also argues that he should have been allowed to present testimony from a Boston Police officer that two witnesses described the vehicle used in the drive-by as being white, contradicting the reports of eyewitnesses who described a silver vehicle matching the silver Chevrolet Impala Gomes was operating with DaSilva in the passenger seat when he was pulled over a short distance from the shooting scene.

“The judge conducted a voir dire of the officer, during which the judge learned that the two purported eyewitnesses on which the proffered testimony relied did not in fact see the vehicle from which the shots were fired,” the justices found.  “The judge did not permit the officer to testify to the two witnesses’ purported observations on the basis that the proffered testimony would have been cumulative of evidence previously admitted that the vehicle had been described by one or more observers as white. The judge acted well within his discretion in excluding the proffered testimony.”

During nearly a month-long trial in 2010, prosecutors presented evidence and testimony to prove that Gomes and DaSilva were upset by a drive-by shooting earlier on the day of Feb. 13, 2007, at the Langdon Street home of relatives.  No one was injured in the shooting, but Boston Police received information that a gunman fired shots at the vehicle as it fled and then ran into the family home, prompting Boston Police to freeze the location while awaiting a search warrant.

In retaliation for this incident, they drove to Maywood Street, where they located a vehicle involved in the earlier incident and opened fire on a group of men standing near the vehicle.  None of those men, however, had any involvement in the earlier shooting.

Sanchez died at an area hospital.  Two other members of the group were struck.  One victim, then age 18, was permanently disabled.

Gomes and DaSilva were initially tried together, but a judge declared a mistrial in DaSilva’s after his attorney fell ill during the course of the trial.  The jury went on to convict Gomes; a second jury convicted DaSilva a year later, and his conviction was affirmed last year.

Assistant District Attorney Julie Higgins of the DA’s Homicide Unit and former Assistant District Attorney Gretchen Lundgren prosecuted the case at trial.  Assistant District Attorney Teresa Anderson of the DA’s Appellate Division argued the case on appeal.  Jennifer Sears was the DA’s assigned victim-witness advocate.  Gomes was represented by David Keighley.

–30–

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