Opinion ID: 2517672
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Michael Mitchell

Text: Petitioner alleges that a few days after the murders, Boyd demanded from, codefendant Reilly a share of the insurance proceeds. This allegation is supported by the testimony of Michael Mitchell, who testified that he was Reilly's roommate at the Vose Street apartments in 1981. Mitchell answered in the affirmative when he was asked whether Reilly told him a few days after the murders that [Boyd] had actually threatened him because he wanted his cut for the killing. Respondent denies these allegations. The referee made no specific findings as to this particular alleged threat Boyd issued to Reilly, or whether Mitchell was telling the truth, although he made the related finding that Boyd told [Michael] Small that he expected to receive a large sum of money, that Boyd was not credible when he denied threatening or trying to intimidate any Vose Street residents, and that Boyd generally lacked credibility. Because the referee failed to make a specific finding with regard to the allegation based on Michael Mitchell's testimony, we are left with disputed factual allegations, the resolution of which would require another evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, for purposes of the present case, we will ignore the allegation based on Michael Mitchell's testimony at the evidentiary hearing.