Abstract

Excerpted From: Samantha Schatten, Not Safe for Work: Greater Sanctions for Racially Motivated Prosecutorial Misconduct, 67 B.C. L. Rev. 971 (March, 2026) (270 Footnotes) (Full Document)

On April 17, 2003, Frances Choy awoke to her mother screaming for help as a fire erupted in the Choy home in Brockton, Massachusetts. Frances, then seventeen, called 911 asking for assistance. Firefighters rescued Frances and her sixteen-year-old nephew, Sung Ching “Kenneth” Choy. Unfortunately, Frances’s mother, Mrs. Nu Trinh “Anne” Choy, and her father, Mr. Yiu “Jimmy” Choy, suffered from smoke inhalation and burns, ultimately succumbing to these injuries. Initially, the police lauded Frances’s 911 call, with the Boston Globe running the headline, “Police Say Brockton Teen’s Call About Fire Saved 3 Lives.” Authorities quickly changed their tune, however, once the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office alleged that Frances and Kenneth conspired to start the fire and kill Mr. and Mrs. Choy.

Following the fire, the Brockton and Massachusetts State Police questioned Frances and Kenneth for hours without attorneys present. Although both initially denied knowing how the fire started, the police told Kenneth that they found two handwritten notes in his room detailing his plans to set fire to the home. After first denying that he wrote the notes, Kenneth eventually told the police that Frances was the mastermind behind the fire and she told him to make notes. Kenneth then stated that after he refused to start the fire, he saw Frances dousing the house in gasoline.

The prosecution, led by attorneys Karen O’Sullivan and John Bradley, argued that Frances committed the arson to receive her parents’ life insurance payout, leave the house, and continue dating her eighteen-year-old boyfriend. Frances ultimately faced three trials, with her first two ending in mistrial because the juries were hopelessly deadlocked. At her second trial, the prosecution granted Kenneth immunity to testify against Frances. Despite this immunity, Kenneth fled to Hong Kong just a few days before the third trial began. Still, the prosecutors presented Kenneth’s testimony in the form of role-play at the third trial. Finally, in 2011, a jury found Frances guilty of first-degree murder. As Frances, then twenty-five years old, began to serve her life sentence in state prison, there was just one problem: Frances and her family insisted she was innocent. Nine years later, they were able to prove it.

In 2020, in Commonwealth v. Choy, Judge Linda Giles of the Superior Court of Massachusetts vacated Frances’s conviction, citing eight reasons why justice may not have been done. Among these reasons, Judge Giles highlighted newly obtained evidence of the prosecutors’ anti-Asian racial bias against Frances. In support of her Rule 30(b) Motion for Post Conviction Relief, Frances’s attorneys presented evidence of this racial animus by offering emails between Assistant District Attorneys O’Sullivan and Bradley in which the prosecutors exchanged several disparaging messages and images depicting anti-Asian stereotypes. Not only did the court agree that the emails demonstrated racial bias toward Frances and her family, but the new prosecutors for the Commonwealth also stated that the emails were horrific and agreed to drop all charges against Frances after the judge granted Frances’s Motion for New Trial.

Part I of this Note describes the Massachusetts Bar Counsel’s case against prosecutors Bradley and O’Sullivan and the novel disciplinary sanctions the BBO Hearing Committee recommended for their racially motivated misconduct. Part I also elaborates on the Rules of Professional Conduct implicated in the case. Part II discusses the role of race in wrongful convictions and the infrequency of bar sanctions for prosecutors who have demonstrated racial bias. 25 Finally, Part III argues that bar sanctions may be an effective way to combat racially motivated prosecutorial misconduct, provided the bar disciplinary processes and rules are reformed to create greater transparency and stricter deterrence for racially motivated prosecutors and those who enable them.

[ . . . ]

In September 2025, by issuing suspensions for Prosecutors O’Sullivan and Bradley, the Massachusetts BBO Hearing Committee created a new standard for disciplining prosecutors who commit racially motivated misconduct in a wrongful conviction. The Massachusetts SJC now has the opportunity to set precedent by affirming the suspensions and emphasizing that racial animus has no place in DA offices. Nevertheless, Massachusetts must go further and amend the current disciplinary processes to create greater transparency for the public. Further, Massachusetts and other jurisdictions should reform the Rules of Professional Conduct. By implementing and modifying ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) and enforcing Rule 8.3(a) more strictly, bar disciplinary boards could better discipline prosecutors who demonstrate clear racial animus and those who enable them. By adopting stricter standards, enhancing transparency, and enforcing mandatory reporting, bar associations can better prevent racially motivated prosecutorial misconduct in the future.