Adoption of Luc, Appeals Court No. 2018-P-0472
The issue in the case stems from a Department of Children and Families (DCF) social worker who testified on direct during the trial and then passed away before cross-examination. The trial judge struck the social worker’s direct examination but admitted into evidence all of the social worker’s dictation notes. The judge then terminated the mother’s parental rights, relying on the social worker’s notes and other DCF documents. The Appeals Court affirmed the termination of parental rights and held that the dictation was admissible as an “official record.” The Appeals Court also held that all of the hearsay statements within the dictation and the other DCF official records were also admissible. This is a significant departure from black-letter evidence law.
John Doe No. 236596 v. SORB, No. SJC-12695
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has solicited amicus briefs in this case to address the following issue:
Whether or to what extent a hearing examiner of the Sex Offender Registry Board must articulate a basis in the record for disregarding, in whole or in part, expert evidence offered by the sex offender; whether expert evidence offered by the sex offender may be disregarded or given less weight if the expert evidence fails to consider all the factors set forth in 803 Code Mass. Regs. §1.40; whether the hearing examiner’s decision correctly applied the clear and convincing evidence standard in determining the sex offender’s classification level.
This case has significant ramifications for the many CPCS clients who seek to present expert evidence in support of their attempt to reduce their preliminary level at a SORB hearing.
Commonwealth v. Dylan D., Appeals Court No. 2019-P-152
The juvenile is asking the SJC to consider, as a matter of first impression, whether the reform act decriminalizing disturbing a school assembly based upon student conduct applies retroactively to cases pending on the effective date of that section such that the juvenile’s adjudication cannot stand as a matter of law.
Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, SJC-12669
The SJC issued the following amicus announcement:
Where, after the effective date of the Act Relative to Criminal Justice Reform, G.L. c. 119, § 52, excludes from the definition of “[d]elinquent child” who has committed a first offense of certain misdemeanors; and where a juvenile has a prior court history, but no record of adjudications or entries that allege unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle; whether the Juvenile Court judge wrongly denied the juvenile’s motion to dismiss a delinquency complaint charging him with a first offense of unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle.
This case will join two other cases that are pending before the SJC to interpret the Juvenile Justice Reform Act. This case involves the purely perspective question of how to interpret and apply the first offense misdemeanor language.
Daniel LaPlante v. Commonwealth, SJC-12570
The case raises important questions regarding parole eligibility for juveniles convicted of multiple counts of first degree murder and sentenced to consecutive life with parole sentences.
YAD’S amicus letter would reiterate that the protective rules around parole eligibility created by the Miller/Diatchenko line of cases are based on categorical attributes of juvenile offenders, not case-specific findings about whether a particular juvenile is especially “depraved” or “incorrigible”. The letter would also argue that it is of no import that by the time juvenile homicide offenders are resentenced, the individuals are adults. Finally, the letter would argue that the Miller/Diatchenko’s requirement that juveniles be afforded a “meaningful opportunity for release” is substantive, not just merely procedural.
Commonwealth vs. Finn, SJC-12687
The Court issued the following amicus solicitation on March 1, 2019:
Where a defendant in the District Court is released on conditions following a dangerousness hearing pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 58A, and is subsequently indicted, whether the defendant can be subject to a new hearing in the Superior Court, i.e., whether the defendant is “held under arrest” for purposes of the statute such that the Commonwealth can seek a new dangerousness hearing in the Superior Court.
This case could have significant ramifications for our clients, especially in light of the startling increase in the frequency with which prosecutors have been filing §58A motions in recent years. In light of the Court’s briefing schedule and the agency’s IT troubles (which began just about the time that the amicus solicitation was issued), it is impossible as a practical matter to submit a full amicus brief in this case. If this request is approved, we would submit this letter to the Court along with a motion under Mass. R.A.P. 17 explaining why we were seeking to file it in lieu of a brief.
Commonwealth v. Gary Cifizzari
Approval was granted to submit an amicus letter in Worcester Superior Court in support of a pending Rule 30 motion for post-conviction relief. The defendant, Gary Cifizzari, is a client of the New England Innocence Project, and is presently represented by Radha Natarajan and a team of pro bono lawyers from Ropes and Gray. The facts of the case include evidence of bite marks on the victim’s stomach and thigh. Subsequent post-conviction DNA testing excludes the defendant.
Jones v. Massachusetts
Approval was granted to submit an amicus brief in support of certiorari to be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Jones case is about compelled decryption.
The SJC held that law enforcement can obtain a compelled decryption order so long as the government proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the suspect knows the passcode to the phone in question. The focus of the petition for certiorari will be the existing split on lower courts about what exactly the testimonial aspect of the decryption is.
Commonwealth v. Finn, SJC-12687
The Supreme Judicial Court issued the following amicus solicitation:
Where a defendant in the District Court is released on conditions following a dangerousness hearing pursuant to G. L. c. 276, §58A, and is subsequently indicted, whether the defendant can be subject to a new hearing in the Superior Court, i.e., whether the defendant is “held under arrest” for purposes of the statute such that the Commonwealth can seek a new dangerousness hearing in the Superior Court.
This case could have significant ramifications for our clients, especially in light of the startling increase in the frequency with which prosecutors have been filing §58A motions in recent years.
Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, SJC-12706
This case involves a juvenile who was placed on pretrial probation and then violated the terms of probation. The judge revoked the juvenile’s pretrial probation and restored his case to the trial list. The trial court judge had three specific questions he reported to the Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) took the case sua sponte and issued the following amicus:
- Where a juvenile has been placed on pretrial probation under G. L. c. 276, § 87, and Commonwealth Tim T., 437 Mass. 592 (2002), in contemplation of the Commonwealth’s dismissal of the case upon the juvenile’s successful completion, whether G. L. c. 276, § 58B, governs the revocation of pretrial probation.
- Where the Commonwealth seeks revocation of pretrial probation in contemplation of dismissal, pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 87, and Commonwealth Tim T., 437 Mass. 592 (2002), whether a violation of any condition must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Whether the evidentiary principles in Commonwealth Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 111 (1990), apply to such a hearing.
Commonwealth v. Dylan D., SJC-12723
The case has been accepted by the SJC on Direct Appellate Review. The case presents the question of whether the section in the 2018 Criminal Justice Reform Act decriminalizing disturbing a school assembly applies retroactively to cases pending when the law went into effect.
Commonwealth v. Quinones, FAR-26798
The request is to file an amicus letter in support of the juvenile’s application for further appellate review and if the SJC takes the case, to file an amicus brief. The letter and brief will ask the SJC to apply a “reasonable juvenile” standard when analyzing police conduct and/or statements alleged to be the “functional equivalent” of interrogation in the context of Miranda.
Commonwealth v. Torres Pagan, SJC-12697
The case is currently on Further Appellate Review in the SJC. The SJC issued the following amicus solicitation:
Whether reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed and dangerous was required to justify a patfrisk, where the defendant, during a routine traffic stop, voluntarily got out of his vehicle without being ordered to do so, and if so, whether the police had such reasonable suspicion in the circumstances of this case.
The amicus brief would explain that all patfrisks are subject to the same standard.