An exonerated man may continue his suit against the city of Boston that alleges three city police officers, who are now dead, helped convict him of a 1975 murder he didn't commit, a Massachusetts federal court has ruled.

In an order issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton found Milton Jones can proceed with the majority of his claims against the city and the deceased detectives who Jones said railroaded him into a life sentence.

The judge said the city could act as a representative of the dead officers in court because it may be the "holder of a liability policy" through the officer's collective bargaining agreement, ruling that dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction and insufficient service of process would be premature.

The court also found that Jones' allegations were sufficient to support certain Monell liability claims, which allow individuals to hold local government entities accountable for constitutional violations.

After serving 15 years in prison and 32 years on supervised release, Jones filed a motion for a new trial in 2020, alleging he was wrongfully convicted, had his conviction vacated in 2022, and the state declined to prosecute him, dismissing all charges, according to court filings.

In October, Jones sued Boston and the detectives who he alleged framed him for the robbery of Golden Café bar and the murder of its owner, Albert Dunn.

Jones claimed the police department had a vendetta against him since he had previously escaped fake charges in instances that "eventually embarrassed" the force. As a result, officers had a motive to point the finger at him, though he was at a concert at the time, he argued.

Through false identification and witness coercion, Jones said detectives Louis McConkey, Peter O'Malley and John J. Daley got him convicted of a crime he didn't commit.

Jones' suit calls his wrongful conviction just one in a long line of similar cases caused by unconstitutional city practices and "deliberate indifference."

It wasn't until the 1990s that Boston police adopted rules against hiding information from prosecutors, Jones said in his suit, and not until 1995 that they officially took up a rule against falsifying evidence.

The police commissioner who was active when Jones was arrested said at the time that the department "had no policy requiring the disclosure of exculpatory or impeachment evidence, and that it was the standard practice to withhold exculpatory and impeachment evidence," according to the suit.

Even if officers deliberately hid exculpatory evidence, they faced no repercussions, Jones claimed.

"If officers felt that they had their man, they were not going to do anything to help the defendant or his attorney," the suit quotes the former commissioner as having said.

The 10-count complaint blames the detectives for depriving Jones of his freedom without due process and denying him a fair trial via fabricated evidence. Jones said the detectives "deliberately" hid evidence that could help show he was innocent, including details of their "reckless investigation."

Jones said he was maliciously prosecuted in violation of the 14th Amendment, and that the detectives were negligent and caused him emotional distress.

Though the city of Boston tried to get Jones' suit dismissed, the city was also to blame, Jones said, adding that it played a role in supervising these detectives. 

Boston's leaders were "the moving force behind the very type of misconduct at issue," Jones said in his suit, adding that the misconduct was so widespread, it was "the de facto policy of the city of Boston."

Judge Gorton said Monday "Jones has sufficiently alleged that the officers' misconduct in his case was perpetuated pursuant an unconstitutional custom and that the BPD, despite being aware of that custom, implemented no training policy to counteract it. While the city vigorously disputes the veracity of the extrinsic reports supplied by plaintiff, the court must construe all well-pled facts as true and therefore concludes that Jones states a plausible Monell claim."

However, the court sided with Boston, which argued one of Jones' claims — for negligent hiring, training and supervision — came too late. The court explained that the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act "bars recovery against a public employer unless the claim was presented within two years of its accrual," and in this case, Jones' allegations came well after that deadline.

Representatives for the parties did not respond to requests for comments Tuesday.

Jones is represented by Anna Benvenutti Hoffmann, Nick Brustin, Mary Katherine McCarthy and Katherine Cion of Neufeld Scheck Brustin Hoffmann & Freudenberger LLP, and John J. Barter and Amy M. Belger.

The city of Boston is represented by Michael Firestone, Nicole E. Gemba and Adam J. Johnson of the Boston Law Department.

The case is Jones v. City of Boston et al., case number 1:25-cv-13084, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

--Editing by Lakshna Mehta.