Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirms judgments denying the Commonwealth’s petitions under G. L. c. 211, § 3, challenging orders transferring juvenile murder cases from Barnstable County to Plymouth County because of extensive and prejudicial pretrial publicity. The court holds that the Commonwealth failed to establish grounds for extraordinary relief and that the trial judge acted within his discretion in ordering a change of venue without first attempting to seat an impartial jury.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Judicial Court should exercise its extraordinary general-superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, to review the Juvenile Court judge's change-of-venue orders.
- Whether the Juvenile Court judge abused discretion by granting a change of venue based on extensive and prejudicial pretrial publicity.
- Whether Mass. R. Crim. P. 37(b) or Massachusetts decisional law requires a judge to attempt to seat an impartial jury before ordering a change of venue.
Holdings
- The Commonwealth was not entitled to extraordinary relief because it failed to show substantial irremediable error, a repeated or systemic misapplication of law, or another circumstance making intervention necessary to protect substantive rights.
- The change-of-venue orders did not constitute an abuse of discretion or other error of law, and the Commonwealth was not entitled to relief on the merits.
- Neither Mass. R. Crim. P. 37 nor Massachusetts decisional law requires a judge, as a matter of law, to attempt to seat an impartial jury before ordering a transfer of venue. Whether to do so is left to the judge's discretion based on the unique facts and circumstances of each case.
- The appeal was strictly limited to review of the single justice's ruling, and relief could be denied unless the single justice abused discretion or committed an error of law.
Key quotations
“No party, including the Commonwealth, should expect this court to exercise its extraordinary power of general superintendence lightly.” (462 Mass. at 1001)
“Nothing in rule 37, or in our decisional law interpreting that rule, requires a judge as a matter of law to try to seat an impartial jury before ordering the transfer of a case.” (462 Mass. at 1002)
Factual background
The juveniles were charged with murder and other offenses in Barnstable County. They presented evidence of extensive pretrial publicity, much of it hostile to them, and sought transfer of their trials to Plymouth County. The Juvenile Court judge allowed the venue-change motions, and the record did not persuade the Supreme Judicial Court that either the motion judge or the single justice had abused discretion.
Procedural history
Tobias T. and Vicente V. were charged with murder and other offenses in the Barnstable County Division of the Juvenile Court Department. The Juvenile Court judge allowed their motions under Mass. R. Crim. P. 37(b) to transfer the trials to Plymouth County over the Commonwealth's objection. A single justice denied the Commonwealth's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petitions, concluding that the venue orders did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.