Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed an order impounding the names and addresses of jurors who served in a murder trial involving alleged gang violence. The court held that documented concerns for juror safety constituted good cause and supported the trial judge’s exercise of discretion, notwithstanding the media’s asserted constitutional and common-law rights of access. The court also clarified procedures for appellate review of impoundment orders in ongoing criminal proceedings and required notice to the Attorney General.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What procedure must a nonparty, including a member of the media, use to obtain appellate review of an impoundment order entered in an ongoing criminal proceeding?
- Must the Attorney General receive notice and an opportunity to be heard on a nonparty's motion to obtain access to impounded documents in a criminal case?
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion or committed legal error by denying access to the jury list and impounding jurors' names and addresses based on juror-safety concerns.
- Whether the Superior Court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before making the good-cause findings supporting impoundment.
Holdings
- In an ongoing criminal proceeding, a nonparty seeking appellate review of an impoundment order should proceed in the first instance before a single justice of the Appeals Court, consistent with Rule 12 of the Uniform Rules on Impoundment Procedure and S.J.C. Rule 1:15.
- The Attorney General must receive notice of, and an opportunity to be heard on, any motion filed by a nonparty in any court seeking access to impounded documents in a criminal case.
- A trial judge may impound the names and addresses of jurors when good cause is shown by genuine and justifiable concerns for juror safety; on the circumstances presented, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion or commit legal error.
- The Uniform Rules require written findings of good cause after a hearing but do not categorically require an evidentiary hearing; an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary where the trial judge had firsthand knowledge of facts establishing serious juror-safety concerns.
Key quotations
“In future cases, appellate review of an impoundment order in an ongoing criminal proceeding should conform to the Uniform Rules on Impoundment Procedure, and should be sought in the first instance before a single justice of the Appeals Court, as was done in the present case.” (448 Mass. at 705)
“Accordingly, the Attorney General must receive notice of, and an opportunity to be heard on, any motion filed in any court by a nonparty to obtain access to impounded documents in a criminal case.” (448 Mass. at 706)
“We have no difficulty concluding that, in this particular murder trial, considerations of juror safety warranted impoundment of the jury list.” (448 Mass. at 708)
Factual background
The defendant was tried for first-degree murder and conspiracy arising from a gang-related shooting. A key prosecution witness was attacked before testifying, one juror became so fearful that she was discharged, and two hours after the not-guilty verdict an unknown assailant fired at the defendant's mother's house, grazing a bystander. Based on these circumstances, the Superior Court judge found a genuine concern for juror safety and impounded the names and addresses of the trial jurors.
Procedural history
During the ongoing criminal proceeding, Standard-Times filed a motion and amended motion seeking postverdict access to the trial jury list. The Superior Court denied access and ordered the jurors' names and addresses impounded based on genuine safety concerns arising from gang violence, an assault on a key witness, a juror's fear, and a postverdict shooting. The newspaper sought review before a single justice of the Appeals Court, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the matter to itself. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.