Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court vacated a District Court order requiring the Commonwealth to produce statistical data derived from motor vehicle citations and related records in a prosecution arising from a traffic stop. The court held that the requested information was not within the possession, custody, or control of the prosecution team, and that the defendants’ discovery motions were vague and overbroad. The court noted that a properly supported motion under the Massachusetts criminal discovery rules, potentially supplemented by a third-party summons, could be an appropriate means of obtaining statistical evidence concerning racially discriminatory traffic stops.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(a)(1)(A)(iii) required the Commonwealth to produce statistical data and related information held by the State police colonel or registry of motor vehicles.
- Whether the District Court could order the Commonwealth to compile statistical data or conduct legal and judgmental evaluations concerning possible profiling when the requested information was not within the prosecutor's possession, custody, or control and the motions were vague and overbroad.
- Whether the defendants' discovery motions were an appropriate procedural vehicle for obtaining statistical evidence relevant to a claim that the traffic stop was racially discriminatory.
Holdings
- The Commonwealth's obligation under Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(a)(1)(A)(iii) does not extend to information that is not in the possession, custody, or control of the prosecutor, persons under the prosecutor's direction and control, or members of the prosecution team. The requested materials held by the State police colonel and registry of motor vehicles were outside that obligation.
- The Commonwealth may not be ordered to conduct statistical analysis of information not in its possession, custody, or control, or to make legal and judgmental evaluations concerning unspecified potentially relevant information. The defendants' motions were deficiently framed, vague, and overbroad.
- A properly presented and documented motion under Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(a)(2) may be an appropriate means for a defendant with reason to believe that a traffic stop was discriminatory to obtain statistical evidence necessary to establish race- or ethnicity-based selective enforcement, but the court did not decide the issue because these motions were deficient.
Key quotations
“The Commonwealth cannot be ordered to respond to discovery motions by the defendants to conduct statistical analysis of information that is not in its possession, custody, or control or to make legal evaluations about unspecified “other information” that may or may not be relevant.” (455)
“a defendant does not have an unlimited right to summons witnesses and documents in advance of trial, but may only do so after mating a threshold showing of relevance” (456)
Factual background
State Trooper Russell Patenaude stopped an automobile driven by Jamaal J. Thomas after observing speeding and failure to move from the left passing lane. During the stop, he detected an odor of fresh marijuana, observed unusual behavior by passenger Michael J. MacDonald, searched the automobile, and found approximately six and one-half pounds of marijuana in multiple bags. Both defendants, who are Black, sought statistical and other information concerning the trooper's citation practices and possible racial profiling.
Procedural history
The defendants filed criminal discovery motions seeking citation books, audit sheets, statistical data, and other information concerning alleged racial profiling by the arresting State trooper. The District Court judge allowed the motions and ordered the Commonwealth to produce statistical data with names and addresses redacted, then denied reconsideration. The Commonwealth petitioned for relief in the county court, and the single justice reported the matter to the Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the District Court order and remanded for entry of judgment vacating that order and denying the defendants' motions.
Remand instructions
Remand to the county court for entry of a judgment vacating the District Court order compelling discovery and entry of an order denying the defendants' motions. The request for appellate attorney's fees and costs is denied.