Commonwealth v. Eric Snow and another, April 20, 2010
456 Mass. 1019
Murder, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Confrontation of Witnesses, Civilian Witnesses
Defendants were indicted for murder. The two filed a motion to dismiss the indictments, arguing prosecutorial misconduct during the course of the grand jury proceedings. The defendants sought an evidentiary hearing on this motion, seeking to call four civilians as witnesses at the hearing. The trial judge allowed the civilian witnesses. The Commonwealth filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, seeking relief from the judge’s order allowing the testimony of the civilian witnesses. A single justice denied the petition. The Commonwealth appeals this denial of its G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. The SJC affirmed.
Interlocutory matters in criminal cases are reviewed only when ‘substantial’ claims of irremediable error are presented, and only in exceptional circumstances where it becomes necessary to protect substantive rights. Commonwealth v. Cook, 380 Mass. 314, 320.
The Commonwealth argued that the judge erred in allowing the defendant’s request for an evidentiary hearing because the defendants had not made the requisite preliminary showing that false testimony was presented to, or that exculpatory evidence was withheld from, the grand jury. It also expressed a concern for the safety of the civilian witnesses. While the SJC expressed understanding of the Commonwealth’s concerns, it stated that the civilian witnesses’ wishes not to have to testify against the defendants on more than one occasion (at the evidentiary hearing and at trial) was not a “substantive right” warranting the exercise of the court’s power of general superintendence. The Superior Court judge’s rulings were routine and discretionary. The SJC held that nothing in the rulings displayed an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
456 Mass. 1019
Murder, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Confrontation of Witnesses, Civilian Witnesses
Defendants were indicted for murder. The two filed a motion to dismiss the indictments, arguing prosecutorial misconduct during the course of the grand jury proceedings. The defendants sought an evidentiary hearing on this motion, seeking to call four civilians as witnesses at the hearing. The trial judge allowed the civilian witnesses. The Commonwealth filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, seeking relief from the judge’s order allowing the testimony of the civilian witnesses. A single justice denied the petition. The Commonwealth appeals this denial of its G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. The SJC affirmed.
Interlocutory matters in criminal cases are reviewed only when ‘substantial’ claims of irremediable error are presented, and only in exceptional circumstances where it becomes necessary to protect substantive rights. Commonwealth v. Cook, 380 Mass. 314, 320.
The Commonwealth argued that the judge erred in allowing the defendant’s request for an evidentiary hearing because the defendants had not made the requisite preliminary showing that false testimony was presented to, or that exculpatory evidence was withheld from, the grand jury. It also expressed a concern for the safety of the civilian witnesses. While the SJC expressed understanding of the Commonwealth’s concerns, it stated that the civilian witnesses’ wishes not to have to testify against the defendants on more than one occasion (at the evidentiary hearing and at trial) was not a “substantive right” warranting the exercise of the court’s power of general superintendence. The Superior Court judge’s rulings were routine and discretionary. The SJC held that nothing in the rulings displayed an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
