Gomes submitted to the court a letter from Frank McNamara, a staff psychologist at the Bureau of Study Counsel who began treating Gomes in Nov. 1998 when he was a first-year.

“Randy developed an intense dependency in his close relationships that was fueled by a deficit in self-esteem,” he wrote in his Sept. 12 letter.

“Consequently, he experienced considerable anxiety about disrupting newly formed social connections,” McNamara wrote.

McNamara wrote that Gomes had “profoundly conflicted feelings” about the expectations for a high level of academic performance.

“His temporarily adopted lifestyle and related behavior was largely motivated by a combination of unacknowledged anger at feeling that he was only valued by his performance, and the previously mentioned longing for acceptance—which was channeled toward a social milieu that thumbed their noses at the very culture that ‘demanded’ his performance,” McNamara wrote. “All of this was founded on a fundamentally weak self-image...and related feelings of depression."

He also wrote that Gomes was writing a book and interested in doing community theatre. McNamara said Gomes reported receiving all A’s during his last semester at Harvard.

Legal Dealings

Judge Agnes’ ruling is a significant addition to the case law regarding the authority of a judge to dismiss a case over the objections of the Commonwealth.

Lawyers for Gomes and Pomey asked Agnes to follow the 1971 Brandano precedent by dismissing the guilty pleas of their clients, granting them pre-trial probation, continuing the case for a period of two years and ultimately dismissing the case without a final finding.

But Bedrosian argued that although Brandano allows a judge to reject a guilty plea, an Aug. 23 decision by the Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth v. Tim T., said a judge could not do so over the objections of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth did object in Gomes and Pomey’s case, but the defendants’ lawyers argued that Tim T. should not apply.

Agnes agreed with the defense.

Although Brandano did raise the constitutional question of whether a judge had the authority to dismiss a case over the objections of the Commonwealth, Agnes said that Tim T. did not answer that question.

“Contrary to the Commonwealth’s argument, the Supreme Judicial Court has not overruled Brandano or decided the constitutional question left open in Brandano,” he wrote in his decision.

Agnes said that judicial dismissals of criminal prosecutions over the objection of the Commonwealth are lawful if they meet three conditions: when required by the interests of justice, following an adversarial proceeding and in circumstances in which the Commonwealth may appeal.

He concluded that since those conditions were met, he had the authority to reject their guilty pleas.

But Agnes chose not to.

“The payment of restitution may not fully address the harm that has resulted to the Hasty Pudding Club,” he wrote.

“This is not a case in which the interests of public justice require a continuance without a finding and a dismissal.”

—Staff writer Amit R. Paley can be reached at paley@fas.harvard.edu.