Graham v. Dist. Att'y for Hampden Dist.

225 N.E.3d 245

Chris GRAHAM & others¹

v.DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR the HAMPDEN DISTRICT.

SJC-13386

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued September 13, 2023

Decided January 23, 2024

District Attorney. Police, Records, Prosecution of criminal cases. Witness, Police officer, Impeachment. Due Process of Law, Disclosure of evidence. Evidence, Disclosure of evidence, Exculpatory, Police report, Impeachment of credibility. Practice, Criminal, District attorney, Disclosure of evidence, Conduct of government agents.

Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on April 6, 2021.

The case was reported by Wendlandt, J.

The following submitted briefs for amici curiae:

Matthew R. Segal (Rebecca A. Jacobstein, Committee for Public Counsel Services, & Jessica J. Lewis also present) for the plaintiffs.

Elizabeth N. Mulvey (Thomas M. Hoopes also present) Boston, for the defendant.

Jaba Tsitsuashvili, of the District of Columbia, Anya Bidwell, of Texas, & Jay Marshall Wolman, for Institute for Justice.

Daniel S. Ruzumna & Eric Beinhorn, of New York, Joshua Tepfer, of Illinois, Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot, of the District of Columbia, & Bharath Palle, for Exoneration Project.

Vanessa Potkin, of New York, Stephanie Roberts Hartung, Adya Kumar, Boston, & Sharon L. Beckman, for New England Innocence Project & others.

Luke Ryan, Northampton, for Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Katharine Naples-Mitchell, for Pioneer Valley Project & others.

Present: Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, Kafker, Wendlandt, & Georges, JJ.²

GAZIANO, J.

In 2020, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted an investigation of the Springfield police department (department) and found that the department’s, officers, particularly those within the narcotics bureau, routinely falsified police reports and engaged in a "pattern or practice of excessive force." These findings raised questions about the integrity of the evidence used by the office of the district attorney for the Hampden district (district attorney’s office) to obtain convictions. We are called on to determine whether the district attorney’s office failed to comply with his obligations to disclose and investigate evidence of the department’s misconduct.

The six plaintiffs -- two criminal defense organizations, two defense attorneys, and two former criminal defendants -- filed a petition with a single justice of this court, seeking global remedies for the alleged failures of the district attorney’s office, premised on the remedies provided in Commonwealth v. Cotto, 471 Mass. 97, 27 N.E.3d 1213 (2015), and Commonwealth v. Ware, 471 Mass. 85, 27 N.E.3d 1204 (2015). The single justice appointed a special master to make and report factual findings and conclusions of law. Ultimately, the single justice reserved and reported the case to the full court.

The plaintiffs request that this court order the district attorney’s office to investigate the effect of the department’s misconduct on criminal prosecutions. In the interim, the plaintiffs request that this court institute a range of remedies, including the creation of a list of officers in the department who are connected to the misconduct, jury instructions tailored to cases involving members of the former narcotics bureau within the department, and a judicial presumption favoring the admissibility of the DOJ report. In opposition, the district attorney’s office claims to have fulfilled its obligations to disclose and investigate the department’s misconduct, such that "everybody knows what everybody knows. There [are] no secrets in Springfield." Further, the district attorney’s office has provided evidence of extensive efforts to obtain the materials reviewed by the DOJ and disclose them to affected criminal defendants.

To remedy the troubling practices identified by the DOJ, which affect the proper administration of justice in Hampden County, we determine that the district attorney’s office, through certain discovery policies, committed a breach of both the duty of the district attorney’s, office to disclose evidence that tends to exculpate defendants and the duty of the district attorney’s office to investigate or inquire about such evidence. First, the practice of the district attorney’s office of disclosing adverse credibility findings made about the department’s officer witnesses only on a discretionary basis violates the duty of the district attorney’s office to disclose. Second, the practice of the district attorney’s office of withholding instances of officer misconduct from disclosure where a particular bad act cannot be attributed clearly to a particular officer violates the duty of the district attorney’s office to disclose. Third, by failing to gain access to all documents known to have been reviewed by the DOJ, the district attorney’s office failed in its duty to investigate. Accordingly, to remedy these breaches of the duties of the district attorney’s office, we order the district attorney’s office to obtain access to all categories of documents known to have been reviewed by the DOJ and disclose them to the plaintiffs. From there, case-by-case adjudication can begin to address the claims of individual defendants affected by the department’s misconduct.

In so ordering, this court reemphasizes the importance of a prosecutor’s dual duties -- to disclose and to investigate -- in upholding the integrity of our criminal justice system. See Committee for Pub. Counsel Servs. v. Attorney Gen., 480 Mass. 700, 702-704, 108 N.E.3d 966 (2018). It is the responsibility of prosecutors and defense attorneys alike to ensure that the due process rights of every criminal defendant in Hampden County are vindicated and protected.³

1. Background. a. Parties. Among the six plaintiffs are two legal organizations, the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) and Hampden County Lawyers for Justice (HCLJ). CPCS is a Statewide entity established under G. L. c. 211D, and is responsible for providing representation to all indigent criminal defendants, whether directly through public counsel or indirectly through private, bar-appointed counsel. HCLJ has approximately 150 attorney members, with four supervising attorneys. HCLJ represents approximately seventy-five percent of indigent defendants in Hampden County.⁴

The district attorney’s office is the defendant in this action. The district attorney’s office prosecutes cases in the Superior, District, and Juvenile Courts, with annual case filings ranging from approximately 20,000 in 2015 to over 15,000 in 2021.

Although the department is not a named party to this action, some background discussion of that department is warranted, given that the plaintiffs’ claims necessarily implicate it. As of the time of the DOJ’s investigation, the department had approximately 500 sworn officers, organized into three major divisions. The narcotics bureau, now disbanded, fell within the investigations division. It was a small unit of plainclothes officers focused on narcotics offenses. At full capacity, the unit consisted of twenty-four officers, three sergeants, one lieutenant, and one captain. The narcotics bureau was the focal point of the DOJ’s investigation.

The department’s internal investigations unit is charged with investigating allegations of misconduct made against both individual officers and the department itself.

b. Facts. This court draws its facts from the findings of the special master, as memorialized in her October 2022 report, supplemented by other undisputed facts in the record. See S.J.C. Rule 2:13, as appearing in 382 Mass. 749 (1981).

i. DOJ report. In April 2018, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts and the DOJ’s civil rights division began investigating the narcotics bureau.

Three main incidents sparked the DOJ’s investigation. First, a narcotics bureau sergeant was federally indicted for "threatening juveniles" in February 2016. In a civil suit subsequently commenced by one of the juveniles against the city of Springfield (city) and the sergeant, the juvenile alleged that he suffered a broken nose, two black eyes, and several contusions and abrasions as a result of the sergeant’s use of excessive force. Second, six off-duty officers from the department engaged in a violent brawl outside a Springfield restaurant in April 2015, prompting the Massachusetts Attorney General to pursue criminal charges against the officers. Third, a former narcotics bureau officer was indicted in January 2016 for stealing almost $400,000 from the department’s evidence room. These incidents were widely publicized and raised concerns about the ability of the district attorney’s office to rely on testimony from "discredited" officers in the department, as well as the "willingness of officers to cover up" constitutional violations and systemic deficiencies.

The DOJ released a report of its findings in July 2020, concluding that there was "reasonable cause to believe" that the narcotics bureau engaged in a "pattern or practice of excessive force." More specifically, on various occasions narcotics bureau officers punched individuals in the face, escalated encounters with civilians unnecessarily, and utilized "unreasonable takedown maneuvers." The DOJ also concluded in its report that it was "not uncommon" for narcotics bureau officers to write "false or incomplete" reports to justify their use of force. According to the DOJ report, officers often used "vague" or "rote" language in prisoner injury reports to prevent further investigation. For example, the DOJ report cites a prisoner injury narrative in which narcotics bureau officers claim that they had to "bring … down" an individual resisting arrest "face first, onto the sidewalk," where she "sustained scrapes to her face area." There were no further details describing the individual’s resistance, the officers’ reactions, or the extent of her injuries.

The DOJ report attributed...