COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT

KEVIN O’LOUGHLIN
Plaintiff
v.

SUFFOLK, SS.

COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS; TOWN OF
FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS;
PAUL BLAKELEY; AL GROW; ESTATE
OF ARTHUR MARTINS; and POLICE
OFFICERS 1 to 5.

Civil Action No. ___________

Defendants

COMPLAINT
1.

In February 1983, Plaintiff Kevin O’Loughlin was wrongfully convicted of a

heinous crime: the kidnapping and rape of an eleven year-old girl in Framingham,
Massachusetts. Mr. O’Loughlin is entirely innocent.
2.

Mr. O’Loughlin served time in prison, where he suffered grievous assaults by

other inmates as well as other trauma, both physical and psychological. After his release, Mr.
O’Loughlin built an exemplary life as a father of two girls and a successful businessman. He is
active in his community and has no criminal history whatsoever since leaving prison. However,
Mr. O’Loughlin’s wrongful conviction haunted him for decades, interfered with his family and
personal relationships, and long threatened to destroy what he had accomplished.
3.

On February 26, 2015, Judge Kathe M. Tuttman of the Superior Court for

Middlesex County granted Mr. O’Loughlin’s Motion for a New Trial, which he submitted on the
grounds of actual innocence and newly discovered evidence. The Middlesex District Attorney’s

1

 Office assented to Mr. O’Loughlin’s request for a new trial, and later filed a nolle prosequi
dismissing all charges against Mr. O’Loughlin.
4.

Mr. O’Loughlin’s conviction was the result of unconstitutional and tortious

conduct by Defendants Blakeley, Martins, Grow, and Police Officers 1 to 5 (together, the “Police
Defendants”), as well as the policies, customs, and practices of the Town of Framingham in
place at the time of Mr. O’Loughlin’s wrongful conviction and incarceration. These actions and
practices led to the incarceration of an innocent man.
5.

The Police Defendants violated Mr. O’Loughlin’s Constitutional rights by failing

to disclose obvious exculpatory information that was in their possession. The man who raped the
young victim was a serial child rapist and kidnapper, long known to the Framingham Police.
Before and after the crime for which Mr. O’Loughlin was convicted, this man committed a
number of similar crimes on young girls of a similar age. The Police Defendants did not disclose
this exculpatory information to Mr. O’Loughlin despite their Constitutional obligation to do so.
Had this information been disclosed, Mr. O’Loughlin would not have been convicted.
6.

Mr. O’Loughlin also seeks compensation from the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts under the Massachusetts Erroneous Convictions Law, M.G.L. c. 258D §§ 1-9.
THE PARTIES
7.

Mr. O’Loughlin is a former resident of the town of Framingham, Massachusetts.

He presently resides in Texas.
8.

On information and belief, Defendant Blakeley is an individual residing in

Massachusetts. He is named in his individual capacity. At all relevant times, he was an officer
in the Framingham Police Department. His actions alleged in this complaint were taken under
the color of law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Town of Framingham.

2

 9.

On information and belief, Defendant Grow is an individual residing in

Massachusetts. He is named in his individual capacity. At all relevant times, he was a detective
in the Framingham Police Department and a citizen of Massachusetts. His actions alleged in this
complaint were taken in Massachusetts and under the color of law of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the Town of Framingham.
10.

On information and belief, Defendant Martins was an individual residing in

Massachusetts. He is now deceased, and this action alleges claims against his estate. He is
named in his individual capacity. At all relevant times, he was the Chief of the Framingham
Police Department. His actions alleged in this complaint were taken under the color of law of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Town of Framingham.
11.

Defendants Police Officers 1 to 5 are pseudonyms for current or former

Framingham Police Officers whose identity is not presently known to Mr. O’Loughlin. They are
named in their individual capacities. Their actions alleged in this complaint were taken under the
color of law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Town of Framingham.
12.

The Town of Framingham is a duly organized municipal corporation under the

laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
13.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is named as a Defendant under M.G.L. c.

258D §§ 1-9.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action under M.G.L. c. 258D § 3.

15.

Suffolk County is a proper venue for this action under M.G.L. c. 258D § 3.

3

 FACTS
A.

The Crime
16.

John Smith (a pseudonym) raped eleven year-old Jane Doe (also a pseudonym) on

April 19, 1982.
17.

Shortly before 8:00 p.m., Jane was playing outside her parents’ home on the north

side of Framingham. Smith approached Jane and asked her the time. He then left, but returned
ten minutes later. Smith grabbed Jane in a headlock and placed his hands over her mouth. He
dragged her to some nearby woods.
18.

Next, Smith displayed a red jack knife, and then held it to Jane’s throat. He

molested her, and then dragged her to another wooded area, where he violently raped Jane at
knifepoint.
19.

Smith eventually released Jane, and she returned to her house. Framingham

police officers responded at approximately 8:19 p.m. Jane was rushed to the hospital.
20.

Defendant Grow interviewed Jane at the Framingham Union Hospital. Doctors

performed a rape kit, which recovered fluid and hair. This evidence has since been discarded or
destroyed.
21.

Jane told the police that her attacker’s voice sounded like that of one of a family

of boys she knew who lived nearby. She had never met Mr. O’Loughlin before, and had never
heard his voice.
22.

Jane was released from the hospital sometime before 10:00 p.m., and the police

brought her back to the scene of the crime to assist them in locating evidence. Jane told the
police she could identify her attacker from photographs, so Defendant Grow drove Jane in the
direction of the Framingham Police headquarters.

4

 B.

Kevin O’Loughlin
23.

Mr. O’Loughlin grew up in Framingham. On the day of Smith’s crime, Mr.

O’Loughlin was 19 years old.
24.

On that day, April 19, 1982, Mr. O’Loughlin returned home from work at about

4:30 p.m. He took a nap until 7:00 p.m., then got up, prepared dinner, changed his clothes, and
eventually left his house at about 10:00 p.m. to go to a party. His sister confirmed that he was
home until 10:00 p.m.
25.

Mr. O’Loughlin lived on Scott Drive, about one and one-half miles from where

Jane was attacked at 8:00 p.m.

While walking to the party (he did not own a car), Mr.

O’Loughlin stopped at a convenience store to buy candy and soda.
C.

The Improper Show Up
26.

At around 10:30 p.m., Defendant Blakeley drove past and then stopped Mr.

O’Loughlin, who was still walking to the party. Mr. O’Loughlin was holding the soda he
purchased a few minutes before, and when the police approached him he assumed they mistook
his Mountain Dew for a beer. He explained to them that it was only a soft drink. But Defendant
Blakeley detained Mr. O’Loughlin and took him to a nearby parking lot.
27.

Defendant Blakeley apparently decided that Mr. O’Loughlin fit the description of

Jane’s attacker. He frisked Mr. O’Loughlin and found a small amount of marijuana and a small
brown folding knife. He detained Mr. O’Loughlin while Defendant Grow drove Jane to their
location.
28.

Defendant Grow arrived with Jane. From a considerable distance, Defendant

Grow shined a spot light on Mr. O’Loughlin. Jane stated that she was not sure whether this was
the man who raped her, and asked to hear his voice.

5

 29.

The Defendants then brought Mr. O’Loughlin closer to Jane. Defendant Grow

engaged Mr. O’Loughlin in conversation while Jane sat in the car. Mr. O’Loughlin could not see
Jane.
30.

According to Defendant Grow and Defendant Blakeley, Jane identified Mr.

O’Loughlin as her attacker. However, at a probable cause hearing, she testified she did not get a
good look at his face. She stated she was “pretty sure” Mr. O’Loughlin was her attacker, but
could not identify him visually. At trial, all she could say was that her attacker had a “teenager’s
voice” and there was nothing special or distinctive about it. As noted above, before the “show
up” with Mr. O’Loughlin, Jane had suggested that her attacker’s voice sounded like that of some
neighborhood boys she knew.
31.

Shortly after the attack, Jane stated that her attacker was wearing a light brown or

tan coat with sheepskin on it, a dark brown shirt, and brown or tan corduroy pants.

When

Defendant Blakeley stopped Mr. O’Loughlin on the day of the attack, he was wearing a light
brown corduroy coat without sheepskin, a grey sweatshirt, and dark brown corduroy pants. At a
suppression hearing, Jane testified that the jacket Mr. O’Loughlin wore was not the one her
attacker wore.
32.

No one attempted to obtain a warrant to search Mr. O’Loughlin’s home. Police

officers spoke to Mr. O’Loughlin’s sister, who confirmed he had been home earlier in the
evening.
33.

Defendants Grow and Blakeley never showed Jane the photograph books of other

potential suspects as they had planned to do.
D.

The Defendants Withhold Evidence of Smith’s Crime Spree
34.

In addition to raping Jane O’Brien, John Smith raped, kidnapped, assaulted,

stalked, molested, and harassed other young girls in Framingham before and after the attack on
6

 Jane, and before and after Mr. O’Loughlin’s prosecution, conviction, and incarceration. Nearly
all of these acts took place on the north side of Framingham, where Jane lived in 1982.
35.

On information and belief, all of the Police Defendants knew of the exculpatory

facts described here. No one disclosed this information to Mr. O’Loughlin until 2014 when
another Framingham police officer, acting on his own initiative, re-investigated the crime and
exonerated Mr. O’Loughlin.
36.

In July 1978, the Framingham Police charged Smith (then 13 years old) with a

daytime breaking and entering in Framingham.
37.

In August 1980, the Framingham Police charged Smith (then 15 years old) with

exposing himself to a 5 year-old girl and asking for oral sex. In a second incident on or around
the same date, he exposed himself to a middle-aged woman. He was charged with two counts of
open and gross lewdness. Both incidents took place near Jane’s house in Framingham.
38.

In 1980 or 1981, a 15 year-old girl recognized Smith standing in her back yard

and looking in her windows. The Framingham Police interviewed Smith but did not charge him.
39.

In May 1981, Smith (then 16 years old) approached an 11 year-old girl who was

riding a bicycle near Jane’s home. As he did a year later when he raped Jane, Smith first asked
this girl if she knew what time it was. He then exposed himself and offered to pay for oral sex.
The girl later identified Smith at a school science fair. The Framingham Police charged Smith,
and he was adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation.
40.

In April 1982, one week before Jane was raped, a 12 year-old girl living on the

north side of Framingham saw a young man masturbating outside her window. The man then
attempted to get into the girl’s house through a backdoor. This incident took place on the same
street as the incident described in paragraph 38 (an incident in which Smith was identified and

7

 interviewed by the Framingham Police). This street connects directly to the street where Jane
lived. This incident was reported to the Framingham Police.
41.

In June 1984, Smith (then 19 years old) was stopped by a Framingham Police

Officer at a gas station. He was carrying a red jack knife. Later that night, another officer
matched Smith’s fingerprints to unsolved residential burglaries on the north side of Framingham,
which was where O’Brien lived.
42.

In July 1984, Smith broke into a home in Framingham, and kidnapped a 14 year-

old girl at knife point. He dragged her into the yard, and raped her. As he did with Jane, Smith
used a sock to gag the girl while he assaulted her. He was arrested and charged by the
Framingham Police, and pled guilty. Smith was sentenced to 15 to 30 years in state prison.
43.

In July 1996, Smith – then on parole – was arrested by the Framingham Police for

having sex with a prostitute in a public area.
44.

In February 2011 Smith – having completed his sentence after his parole was

revoked – was stopped by the Framingham Police while taking what he described as a “nostalgic
walk” in the area near Jane’s childhood home.
45.

In June 2011, Smith brought a laptop to a repair store. The technician found a

number of pornographic images of prepubescent females. He was charged by the Framingham
Police and sentenced to probation.
46.

The exculpatory information described in the paragraphs above was not provided

to Mr. O’Loughlin until 2014.
47.

Any reasonable police officer would have known of his or her obligation to

disclose the exculpatory information described above. The suppression of this information led to
Mr. O’Loughlin’s wrongful arrest, conviction, and incarceration. With respect to the events that

8

 took place after his arrest or conviction, the Defendants’ failure to disclose it prolonged Mr.
O’Loughlin incarceration and delayed his exoneration.
48.

From prior to 1982 through the time of Mr. O’Loughlin’s conviction and

incarceration, the Town of Framingham allowed an unwritten policy or custom to develop in the
Framingham Police Department of failing to train and regulate police officers to ensure they
complied with their Constitutional obligations, failing to investigate allegations of misconduct by
police officers who violate the rights of people in Framingham and of failing to discipline
officers for these violations. This policy or custom has led Framingham police officers to
believe that they can violate the Constitution with impunity because they will not be investigated
or disciplined for their misconduct.
49.

While subsequent leadership in the Town of Framingham and Framingham

Police Department have corrected or improved the practices, customs, and policies described in
the preceding paragraph, these practices, customs, and policies led to Mr. O’Loughlin’s wrongful
arrest, conviction, and incarceration.
E.

Mr. O’Loughlin’s Wrongful Conviction and Incarceration
50.

Mr. O’Loughlin has professed his innocence at every opportunity from the day of

his arrest through the date of this Complaint. He testified on his own behalf at trial, and even
after his conviction he refused to confess to the crime despite threats from prison authorities that
his refusal to confess would lead to indefinite incarceration as a sexually dangerous person.
51.

However, because the Police Defendants failed to turn over exculpatory

information, a jury convicted Mr. O’Loughlin of raping Jane in February 1983.
52.

The trial court sentenced Mr. O’Loughlin to prison. He served the majority of his

time at MCI Norfolk.

9

 53.

While in prison, Mr. O’Loughlin suffered grievous physical and emotional abuse

from other prisoners. His time in prison caused him severe and extreme emotional harm, trauma,
depression, and other mental and physical harm to be proven at trial.
54.

During the time he was incarcerated, Mr. O’Loughlin was separated from his

family and friends. During this time he was also deprived of the opportunity to continue his
education and start a family.
55.

From the time of his release in 1986 until his exoneration in 2015, Mr.

O’Loughlin has lived in fear that the wrong person could discover his conviction. He knew he
could lose his job and standing in the community. Living with this reality hanging over his head
for decades has caused Mr. O’Loughlin to suffer significant emotional distress and injury, and
has harmed his relationships with his family, friends, and community. He was terrified his
daughters would learn of his false conviction and think that their father was a child rapist.
F.

Exoneration
56.

Acting on his own initiative, Deputy Chief Kevin Slattery of the Framingham

Police Department re-investigated the case beginning in late 2012. Despite the decades that had
passed, Deputy Chief Slattery identified the exculpatory information that confirmed that Smith
raped Jane, and Mr. O’Loughlin was innocent.
57.

Deputy Chief Slattery promptly provided the exculpatory information to the

Office of the Middlesex District Attorney. He could not disclose all of the details to Mr.
O’Loughlin due to CORI restrictions.
58.

On November 20, 2014, Mr. O’Loughlin filed a Rule 30(b) motion for a new trial

in Middlesex Superior Court. His motion relied in large part on the evidence that Deputy Chief
Slattery assembled – evidence which the Police Defendants had failed to disclose to Mr.
O’Loughlin.
10

 59.

The grounds for Mr. O’Loughlin’s motion were that justice was not done because

he was innocent of the charges against him, and that there was new evidence that showed he was
wrongfully convicted. The Middlesex District Attorney’s Office assented to the relief Mr.
O’Loughlin sought in this motion. A copy of Mr. O’Loughlin’s motion and supporting
memorandum of law is attached as Exhibit 1.
60.

On February 26, 2015, Judge Kathe M. Tuttman granted Mr. O’Loughlin’s

motion to vacate his conviction and ordered a new trial. A copy of the docket entry granting Mr.
O’Loughlin’s motion is attached as Exhibit 2.
61.

The Commonwealth dismissed all charges against Mr. O’Loughlin on March 6,

2015. A copy of the Commonwealth’s nolle prosequi is attached as Exhibit 3.
CLAIMS
Count I:
Compensation for Erroneous Conviction
(against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts)
62.

The paragraphs above are incorporated by reference.

63.

Mr. O’Loughlin was wrongfully convicted of several felony charges, including

two counts of rape, and one count of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon,
indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, and kidnapping in Middlesex County Superior
Court (Docket No. 82-2430 to 2435) in February 1983.
64.

Mr. O’Loughlin has been granted judicial relief by a state court of competent

jurisdiction on grounds that establish his innocence. The Superior Court for Middlesex County
vacated the charges against Mr. O’Loughlin and ordered a new trial. The Middlesex District
Attorney’s Office has entered a nolle prosequi.
65.

At this time, no criminal proceeding is pending or can be brought against Mr.

O’Loughlin for any act associated with the felony convictions listed above.
11

 66.

Mr. O’Loughlin was sentenced to and served more than 1 year in state prison.

67.

Accordingly, Mr. O’Loughlin is entitled to damages and compensation under

M.G.L. c. 258D §§ 1-9 in an amount to be proven at trial.
Count II:

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence)

(against Defendants Grow, Blakeley, Martins, and Police Officers 1 to 5)
68.

The paragraphs above are incorporated by reference.

69.

Defendants Grow, Blakeley, Martins, and Police Officers 1 to 5 violated Mr.

O’Loughlin’s Constitutional rights by suppressing and failing to disclose exculpatory evidence
prior to and after his conviction, in violation of Mr. O’Loughlin’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights
to due process and a fair trial.
70.

Defendants Grow, Blakeley, Martins, and Police Officers 1 to 5 suppressed the

evidence of Smith’s extensive history of committing similar crimes against similar victims in a
similar area at a similar time as the crime for which Mr. O’Loughlin was wrongly convicted.
71.

These Defendants knew that their suppression of exculpatory evidence violated

Mr. O’Loughlin’s rights.
72.

These Defendants’ actions led to Mr. O’Loughlin’s conviction and incarceration,

which were reasonably foreseeable results of their actions.
73.

With respect to exculpatory evidence identified after Mr. O’Loughlin’s

conviction, the Defendants’ actions prolonged Mr. O’Loughlin’s incarceration and delayed his
exoneration, which were reasonably foreseeable results of their conduct.
74.

The misconduct described in this count was objectively unreasonable and was

undertaken intentionally with willful indifference to Mr. O’Loughlin’s Constitutional rights.
75.

As a direct and proximate result of these actions, Mr. O’Loughlin suffered the

damages described above.
12

 Count III:

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Policies, Practice, and Training)

(against the Town of Framingham, Massachusetts)
76.

The paragraphs above are incorporated by reference.

77.

From prior to 1982 through the time of Mr. O’Loughlin’s conviction and

incarceration, the Town of Framingham allowed an unwritten policy or custom to develop in the
Framingham Police Department of failing to train and regulate police officers to ensure they
complied with their Constitutional obligations, failing to investigate allegations of misconduct by
police officers who violate the rights of people in Framingham and of failing to discipline
officers for these violations. This policy or custom has led Framingham police officers to
believe that they can violate the Constitution with impunity because they will not be investigated
or disciplined for their misconduct.
78.

Accordingly, officials of the Town of Framingham and Framingham Police

Department were deliberately indifferent with respect to their training, hiring, and supervisory
obligations.
79.

These policies and customs of the Town of Framingham were the moving force

behind the Police Defendants’ violations of Mr. O’Loughlin’s Constitutional rights.
80.

Subsequent to Mr. O’Loughlin’s release from prison, leaders in the Town of

Framingham and Framingham Police Department have initiated new policies, practices, and
trainings to correct the problems described above. In 2014, the work of a Framingham Police
Officer exonerated Mr. O’Loughlin. However, the policies, practices, and customs in place at
the time of Mr. O’Loughlin’s arrest and incarceration led to his wrongful conviction.
81.

As a direct and proximate result of the Town of Framingham’s actions, Mr.

O’Loughlin suffered the damages described above.

13

  FOR RELIEF

Accerdingly, Mr. OgLeughlin requeste that the Calm:

1. Award eempensatory damagee;

2. Award genitive damages;

3. Award the caste of this aetien, including reagenable attemey?s fees;

4, Enter an order expunging and sealing; Mr. O?Leaghlin?s criminal records pursuant

to M.G.L. c. 25813 7; aad
4. Award such other relief as the Ceurt may deem necessary and appropriate.
JURY DEMAND

Mr. O?Loughlin demands a trial byjury.

Respectfully Submitted,
KEVIN 

By his attorneys,

(:?Besm View magi}?
Michael Kendall 544866)
Matthew Knowles 678935)
MCDERMOTT WILL EMERY LLP
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Telephene: (617) 535?4085
Fax: (617) 5358800

Email: mkendall@mwe.mm
mknowlesfgimwelcom

l4

George W. Vien (BBO# 547411)
DONNELLY, CONROY & GELHAAR, LLP
260 Franklin Street (Suite 1600)
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Telephone: (617) 720-2885
Fax: (617) 720-3554
Email: gwv@dcglaw.com
Dated: March 30, 2015

15