NACDL's 19th Annual State Criminal Justice Network Conference
August 17-19, 2020 | Held Virtually
When Robocop Becomes Reality: Confronting Technology in the Criminal Justice System

In 2018, the Massachusetts legislature repealed the 1845 statute, “Procuring Miscarriage,” which made performing an abortion a crime punishable by up to 20 years. 

NACDL is providing resources regarding the Criminalization of Pregnancy and Reproductive Health to the criminal defense community. Resources are provided without warranty or guarantee. Please consult the laws and rules of your state and local authorities. Please log in to access them. Membership is NOT required.

See the various issues on which NACDL has conducted criminal justice advocacy in Massachusetts. Scroll to the bottom of the page to see active legislation in Massachusetts that NACDL is tracking.

NACDL advocated for comprehensive juvenile justice legislation in Massachusetts.

NACDL has engaged in legislative advocacy to stop the use of face surveillance technology in Massachusetts.

Policies and rulings on lengthy imprisonment terms in Massachusetts.

Attorney-client communications federal caselaw and state-specific anecdotal data in Massachusetts

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent-Appellant Facebook.

Argument: This Court should grant direct appellate review in this case because the public interest in preserving work product protection and attorney-client privilege is of such importance that justice requires a final determination by this Court. In compelling Facebook to produce information generated in the course of an attorney-led investigation, the Superior Court failed to properly apply the work product and attorney-client privilege protections that attached to those materials. The work product doctrine protects from disclosure information generated in the course of an attorney-led investigation that is conducted “because of” anticipated litigation, and an attorney’s sorting of information during a privileged investigation cannot be discoverable by his adversary. And the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between lawyers and their clients even if the client publicly discloses the existence of an attorney-led investigation. In rejecting these principles, the Superior Court created dangerous uncertainty in the attorney-client relationship.

Hampden County Superior Court: Commonwealth v. Perrot 

 

US District Court District of Massachusetts: USA v. Hebshie

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Erick Cotto Jr., and related cases 

Commonwealth v. Oswelt Millien; Opinion 

 

Argument: The Supreme Judicial Court, Gants, C.J., held that:
indigent defendant’s trial counsel’s performance was manifestly unreasonable in failing to seek public funds to retain an expert witness to offer opinion testimony on cause of injuries to defendant’s six-month-old daughter or to assist with cross-examination of Commonwealth’s witnesses; and trial counsel’s performance was prejudicial to defendant, thus satisfying test for an ineffective assistance claim on a motion for new trial.
Order denying motion for new trial reversed; judgments of conviction vacated; case remanded for new trial.

Brief for Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: Every Dookhan defendant should be afforded the presumption that Dookhan’s fraud was prejudicial. The presumption of prejudice should be irrebuttable. A conclusive presumption preserves the integrity of the judicial system. A conclusive presumption would allow for more efficient administration of justice and would more effectively deter future commonwealth misconduct. The court should bar re-prosecution of dismissed Dookhan cases. Dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate corrective to the lax response by the Commonwealth to the Dookhan and Farak scandals. A bar on re-prosecution will obviate a need for courts to address the question of whether Dookhan not only falsified drug certifications, but also irrevocably corrupted the underlying drug sample.

Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae.

Argument: Due process and the Rules of Professional Conduct require the prosecutors to promptly notify individual defendants of the exculpatory evidence in each affected case. Because the Commonwealth was aware of this exculpatory evidence at the time of each trial or plea, Brady v. Maryland requires prompt disclosure to each defendant. That a Brady violation occurred in each Dookhan defendant’s case is clear. Prior decisions of both the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court support the conclusion that Brady requires disclosure for defendants whose trials included Dookhan-tainted evidence. Prior decisions of both the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court support the conclusion that Brady requires disclosure for defendants in Dookhan-tainted cases who pled guilty. All prosecutors of Dookhan cases have an ethical obligation to promptly disclose this exculpatory evidence pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d).