Comm. for Pub. Counsel Servs. v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court
| Decision Date | 03 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | SJC-12926 |
| Citation | 484 Mass. 431,142 N.E.3d 525 |
| Parties | COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES & another v. CHIEF JUSTICE OF the TRIAL COURT & others. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Matthew R. Segal (Jessie J. Rossman also present) for Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Rebecca A. Jacobstein, Committee for Public Counsel Services (Benjamin H. Keehn, Committee for Public Counsel Services, also present) for Committee for Public Counsel Services.
Eric A. Haskell, Assistant Attorney General (David C. Kravitz & Mindy S. Klenoff, Assistant Attorneys General, also present) for the Attorney General.
Daniel P. Sullivan for Chief Justice of the Trial Court.
Charles W. Anderson, Jr., for Department of Correction.
Gloriann Moroney for parole board.
Donna Jalbert Patalano, Assistant District Attorney, for district attorney for the Suffolk district.
Thomas D. Ralph, Assistant District Attorney (Marian T. Ryan, District Attorney, also present) for district attorney for the northern district & others.
Jane A. Sullivan, Assistant District Attorney (Elizabeth Dunphy Farris, Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the district attorney for the middle district & others.
Robert W. Harnais (Dan V. Bair, II, Springfield, also present) for fourteen sheriff's departments.
Andrea Harrington, District Attorney for the Berkshire District, was present but did not argue.
Robert A. Jones & Joshua S. Levy, Boston, for the special master, were present but did not argue.
The following submitted briefs for amici curiae:
Katharine Naples-Mitchell for Mary T. Bassett & others.
Ruth Greenberg for Joseph Buckman & others.
Max Bauer, Boston, for Dominick Donovan & others.
Liam T. Lowney, pro se.
Michael Cox, pro se.
Andrea James, Joneisha James, Stacey Borden, Robert Williams, Suzanne Gray, Michael Gray, Kathleen Mahan, Adelcia Miller, Damaris Muhammed, Brooke Hadley, Reyna M. Ramirez, Lauren Petit, Khadejah Al-Rijleh, Casandra Scarlet, Erika N., Paige Scott, Aaron Bray, Nana Yankah, Marsophia S. Ducheine, L.B., L.M., J.C., Lor Holmes, J.D., W.H., K.L., S.P., Joan Hunter, R.R., T.B., J.G., Selena Williams, Keondra Jean, J.B., Jude Glaubman, Nicole Sadler, Mallory Hanora, Jurrell Laronal, Annette Bartley, Fernando Phillips, Miles McKinney, Carlos R., & Ayana Aubourg, pro se.
Leon Smith for Citizens for Juvenile Justice.
Elizabeth Matos, James Pingeon, Bonita Tenneriello, & Jesse White for Prisoners' Legal Services of Massachusetts.
Phillip Kassel, Jennifer Honig, Boston, Coco Holbrook, & Caitlin Parton for Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee.
Christine M. Netski, Boston, Meredith Shih, David M. Siegel, & Martin F. Murphy, Boston, for Boston Bar Association.
Jessica L. LaClair for Jose Rivera.
Present: Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ.
The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for every aspect of our communities. While scientists are racing to discover whether any existing drugs can help to treat the virus and improve outcomes for critically ill patients, and others are working at top speed to develop a vaccine, currently there is no cure and no vaccine. Health care workers on the frontlines of the epidemic are coming down with the virus in much higher percentages than others, while surgical masks and other basic protective equipment are in short supply, and hospitals with already close-to-capacity intensive care unit beds confront the possibility of inadequate resources to care for critically ill patients, such as lack of needed ventilators. Everyday life is heavily disrupted; most businesses, schools, and houses of worship are closed,3 while grocers, pharmacies, and delivery services stretch to provide essential services to meet basic needs, and families without paychecks worry about how to meet those needs. The Centers For Disease Control (CDC) guidelines recommend that, to avoid exposure, individuals limit contact with others, maintain a distance of at least six feet from other individuals if they are together, engage in frequent handwashing, and clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily in order to "flatten the curve," i.e., to reduce the number of cases the beleaguered health care system must treat at any one time.
On March 10, 2020, the Governor declared a state of emergency to support the Commonwealth's response to the threat of COVID-19. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization formally declared the expanding spread of the COVID-19 virus a global pandemic. Since then, infections have spread alarmingly, rapidly, and at an increasing rate, both in Massachusetts and throughout the world. In an attempt to mitigate the spread of the disease, the Governor has imposed strict restrictions on many aspects of everyday life, including closing business and schools and stringently restricting public and private gatherings. In the week between the filing of this petition and oral argument, confirmed cases in the Commonwealth increased more than eight-fold, from 777 cases to 6,620 cases.4
Pursuant to its supervisory authority, this court has issued a series of orders with respect to court proceedings, new filings, and trials, designed to "protect the public health by reducing the risk of exposure to the virus and slowing the spread of the disease." As the health crisis has deepened, we have been forced to limit physical access to our court houses to address only "emergency matters that cannot be resolved through a videoconference or telephonic hearing, either because such a hearing is not practicable or because it would be inconsistent with the protections of constitutional rights," and have directed each trial court department to issue a standing order to determine what constitutes an emergency matter. Each trial court department subsequently has done so. We have emphasized, as well, that, "[i]n criminal cases, where appropriate, a defendant may ask the court for reconsideration of bail or conditions of release."
The petitioners, the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) and the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL), bring our focus to the situation with respect to COVID-19 confronting individuals who are detained in jails and houses of correction pending trial, and individuals who have been convicted and are serving a sentence of incarceration in the Commonwealth. To allow the physical separation of individuals recommended by the CDC, the petitioners seek the release to the community of as many individuals as possible as expeditiously as possible, indeed, on the day of argument in this case, according to one of them. They offer a number of different legal theories under which a broad-scale release might be accomplished.
We conclude that the risks inherent in the COVID-19 pandemic constitute a changed circumstance within the meaning of G. L. c. 276, § 58, tenth par., and the provisions of G. L. c. 276, § 5 57. To decrease exposure to COVID-19 within correctional institutions, any individual who is not being held without bail under G. L. c. 276, § 58A, and who has not been charged with an excluded offense (i.e., a violent or serious offense enumerated in Appendix A to this opinion) is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of release. The individual shall be ordered released pending trial on his or her own recognizance, without surety,6 unless an unreasonable danger to the community would result, or the individual presents a very high risk of flight.
The special master previously appointed by this court in conjunction with this case will work at the county level with each relevant court to facilitate these hearings.7 The sheriffs of each county shall provide the special master daily census reports for each correctional institution, and the special master shall file weekly reports with this court, as detailed in Appendix B to this opinion, so that the court will be better positioned to respond to further changes in this rapidly-evolving situation. In addition, the Department of Correction (DOC) shall furnish the special master daily reports of inmate counts and rates of COVID-19 cases at each facility, as explained in Appendix B.
With respect to those individuals who are currently serving sentences of incarceration, absent a finding of a constitutional violation, our superintendence power is limited. Those who have been serving sentences for less than sixty days may move to have their sentences revised or revoked under Mass. R. Crim. P. 29, as appearing in 474 Mass. 1503 (2016) ( Rule 29 ). Those who are pursuing appellate proceedings or a motion for a new trial may seek a stay of execution of sentence pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 6, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1608 (2019). See Commonwealth v. Charles, 466 Mass. 63, 83, 992 N.E.2d 999 (2013). Where there is no constitutional violation, however, art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights precludes the judiciary from using its authority under Rule 29 to revise and revoke sentences in a manner that would usurp the authority of the executive branch. Removing any limitation on the time in which a motion to revise and revoke a sentence may be brought, however, would do precisely that. See Commonwealth v. McCulloch, 450 Mass. 483, 488, 879 N.E.2d 685 (2008), quoting Commonwealth v. McGuinness, 421 Mass. 472, 476 n.4, 658 N.E.2d 150 (1995) ().
To afford relief to as many incarcerated individuals as possible, the DOC and the parole board are urged to work with the special master to expedite parole hearings, to expedite the issuance of parole permits to those who have been granted parole, to determine which individuals nearing completion of their sentences could be released on time served, and to identify other classes of inmates who might be able to be released by agreement of the parties, as well as expediting petitions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Comm. for Pub. Counsel Servs. v. Barnstable Cnty. Sheriff's Office
...detainees were entitled to a strong but rebuttable presumption of release. Committee for Pub. Counsel Servs. v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court (No. 1), 484 Mass. 431, 453, 142 N.E.3d 525 (2020) ( CPCS I ). Judicial officers conducting bail determinations for new arrestees also were direct......
-
K.J. v. Superintendent of Bridgewater State Hosp.
...which we have repeatedly said is a core function of the executive branch. See Committee for Pub. Counsel Servs. v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court (No. 1), 484 Mass. 431, 451, 142 N.E.3d 525, S.C., 484 Mass. 1029, 143 N.E.3d 408 (2020) (execution of criminal sentences is executive function......
-
In re Request to Modify Prison Sentences
...amounts to a change in circumstances under the Rule. See Comm. for Pub. Counsel Servs. v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court, 484 Mass. 431, 142 N.E.3d 525, 533 (2020) (noting the Supreme Court of Washington declared that the "pandemic shall be presumed to be a ‘material change in circumstanc......
-
Diaz v. Commonwealth
...environments," including court rooms, "increase transmissibility" of this virus. Committee for Pub. Counsel Servs. v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court (No. 1), 484 Mass. 431, 436, 142 N.E.3d 525, S.C., 484 Mass. 1029, 143 N.E.3d 408 (2020). Additionally, the Commonwealth argues that its abi......
-
Problem Solving During the Pandemic: How Massachusetts Has Provided Access to the Courts and to Justice During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
...See id. at 571. (62.) Id. at 571-72. (63.) See id. at 572-74. (64.) See Comm. for Pub. Couns. Servs. v. Chief Just. of the Trial Ct., 142 N.E.3d 525, 539 (Mass. 2020) (considering totality of circumstances in determining whether release appropriate for pretrial detainee during pandemic); se......