Boston Officer Nicholas O’Malley Faces Court Hearing Over Evidence in Manslaughter Case

Boston Police Officer Nicholas O’Malley, 34, is scheduled to appear in Suffolk Superior Court on Tuesday for a discovery hearing regarding evidence exchange in his ongoing manslaughter case. O’Malley faces a manslaughter charge connected to the March 11 shooting death of 39-year-old Stephenson King Jr. in Roxbury.

Court Proceedings Focus On Evidence Exchange

The Tuesday court date addresses discovery motions filed by O’Malley’s defense team throughout September. The defense is seeking medical examiner documents, police training materials, and King’s criminal record. State case law relevant to self-defense cases prompted one specific motion requesting information regarding King’s prior violent conduct. Defense attorneys also requested details from a closed-door meeting where they contend the District Attorney's office discussed the case.

Officer O'Malley Pleads Not Guilty to Killing King

Investigators stated that O’Malley and a second officer responded to a carjacking report minutes before the shooting and approached King as he sat inside a stolen vehicle on Linwood Square in Roxbury. The Commonwealth alleges that O’Malley shot and killed King without legal justification after King backed into an unoccupied police cruiser and attempted to drive away. O’Malley pleaded not guilty during his arraignment in a Roxbury courtroom after being indicted in June. While the prosecution requested bail be set at $25,000, the court released the officer on personal recognizance.

O’Malley asserted that he feared a second officer would be struck by the car. Suffolk District Attorney Kevin Hayden stated that other evidence contradicts that claim. In August, the defense filed a motion to dismiss accompanied by related documentation, which currently remains sealed on the court docket without a recorded judge’s decision.

Impounded Video Remains Unavailable To Public

Critical video footage capturing the final moments before the shooting has been a central point of contention. Both prosecution and defense teams maintain that the video proves their respective versions of events. However, following a judicial ruling in July, the footage remains impounded at least until the trial begins.