For 28 (now 30) years, Brian Peixoto has steadfastly maintained that he had no role whatsoever in the tragic collapse and death of Christopher Affonso Jr. and that the trial that produced his wrongful conviction was profoundly unjust.

The evidence presented in support of the instant motion powerfully supports this position and shows that justice was not done. It also demonstrates that Brian truly never stood a chance at trial, due to a disturbing confluence of discovery delays and omissions, trial by ambush tactics, and serious misconduct in the presentation of the evidence and closing argument.

Brian also never stood a chance on direct appeal, or in his prior motions for new trial, because not a single one of his attorneys after trial took the time to master the factual record, let alone to develop the medical evidence that was needed to substantiate his innocence.

The Motion for New Trial (NTM) was filed on January 31, 2024. It is the result of years of extensive investigation that included interviewing witnesses, securing all investigative, medical and autopsy records and evidence, conducting multidisciplinary scientific research, consulting with clinical and forensic experts across a wide-range of disciplines and interviewing Brian’s prior attorneys.

The extensive motion details substantive and egregious claims. For context and summary, the claims focus on the following:

• Scientific evidence of actual innocence claims detail why Brian is factually innocent. Recently uncovered evidence, a witness for the state who disproves the prosecution’s theory of motive, and scientific proof of a grossly inadequate death investigation including patently false information presented by unqualified state experts.

• Unfair Trial claims detail why Brian has been in prison for 28 (now 30) years. Brian was deprived of his federal and state right to due process and effective assistance of counsel due to a combination of prosecutorial misconduct and deficient performance by counsel that prevented the jury from meaningfully assessing the credibility contest at the core of this case.