criminal law

SJC allows police to “double-dip” with show-cause hearings

Published on: June 24, 2025 | by Tom Miller

Free From above of stylish interior of modern conference hall with comfortable chairs and oval table Stock Photo Show-cause hearings, also known as clerk-magistrate’s hearings, are a unique feature of the Massachusetts legal system, offering many of those accused of criminal conduct but not arrested a chance to privately contest charges before they publicly issue, thus potentially avoiding the expense, uncertainty, and reputational harm associated with a formal court proceeding. Established by statute under G. L. c. 218, § 35A, the main function of show-cause hearings is to assess whether probable cause exists for the criminal charges—usually solely on the basis of a police report attached to the application for a criminal complaint. Probable cause is a low legal bar—much less than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied at trial—but the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has also held that clerk-magistrates also have the discretion to “screen” or “mediate” charges that may be supported by probable cause but do not belong in the criminal justice system.

Unfortunately, in Cabrera v. Commonwealth the SJC took a step backwards with respect to the protections offered by show-cause hearings. The case began in summer 2020, when police officers responded to a noise complaint and encountered the defendant, who, according to the police, was intoxicated and had a handgun visible in one of his pockets. Although the handgun was properly licensed, police sought a criminal complaint under G. L. c. 269, § 10H, which bans possession of a loaded firearm while intoxicated. In fall 2020, a clerk-magistrate held a show-cause hearing and found no probable cause. This ruling was based on a mistaken reading of § 10H as requiring the possession to be in a motor vehicle.

The statute establishing show-cause hearings does not include any mechanism for review or appeal, but the SJC has held that a judge has inherent authority to revisit a decision not to issue the complaint if requested. In Cabrera, neither police nor prosecutors requested such a redetermination to correct the magistrate’s mistake about the meaning of § 10H. Police, however, had confiscated both the defendant’s handgun and his license to carry after the incident, and did not return them. Two years after the hearing, the defendant went to the police station at least three times to demand them back; police refused to return his belongings. At one point, the defendant suggested that he might sue the police department. Soon after these encounters, in May 2023, the same police officer who filed the original complaint application filed a new one, based on the same incident in 2020. A different clerk-magistrate found probable cause and allowed the criminal complaint to issue, leading to the initiation of a criminal case.

Proposed legislation would automatically seal eligible criminal records in Massachusetts

Published on: March 21, 2025 | by Niamh Gibbons

A group of Massachusetts lawmakers has introduced a bill this year that would require automatic sealing of many criminal records after specified waiting periods have passed from the end of the defendant’s sentence. The waiting periods have been part of the Commonwealth’s sealing laws for many years and, as we have previously written, were last amended in 2018, when they were reduced to seven years for a felony record and three years for a misdemeanor or delinquency record, provided the defendant has no subsequent convictions (sex offenses cannot be sealed for fifteen years or while the defendant remains required to register as a sex offender). But although the 2018 reforms made sealing more accessible, one estimate puts the number of applications for sealing at only ten percent of the total number of eligible defendants. The new legislation aims to dramatically increase the number of sealed records by eliminating the current petitioning process and automatically sealing records after the waiting period.

Sealing a criminal record can be an important step in allowing former criminal defendants to access to jobs, housing, and other opportunities that are not available to people with a criminal record. After a record is sealed, it doesn’t appear on the version of the defendant’s CORI that an employer or housing provider would receive, but it remains available to courts and various state and federal agencies including law enforcement and child services.

Under current Massachusetts law, former defendants whose records have passed the waiting period need to file a petition to the Probation Department to start the sealing process. The petition is free, but the defendant needs to know that they are eligible for sealing and submit the form, which includes identifying the correct statutory provision and attesting that the statute’s requirements are met. Some people’s records might also be more complex, such as those with a mix of eligible and non-eligible charges, which creates the added complexity of requiring a separate petition to the court that issued the charges. A separate petition is usually required if the defendant seeks to seal a record of a dismissed or dropped charge before the end of the waiting period (a process known as discretionary sealing).

In Commonwealth v. Karen K., the Supreme Judicial Court Approves the Patfrisk of a Black Teenager, But Offers Hints for Future Challenges

Published on: January 10, 2023 | by Tom Miller

The use of “patfrisk” or “stop-and-frisk” techniques by police is a serious—and, in some communities, alarmingly frequent—intrusion on personal liberty and dignity. In Commonwealth v. Karen K., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) considered the case of a sixteen-year-old African-American girl stopped and patfrisked by Boston police, who discovered a loaded firearm in the waistband of her pants. The case provided an opportunity for the Commonwealth’s highest court to revisit some of the same highly charged questions of constitutional law at play in their controversial and fractured 2021 decision in Commonwealth v. Sweeting-Bailey, which we previously discussed on this blog.

Proposed legislation would increase opportunities for juvenile diversion

Published on: July 22, 2022 | by Jennifer M. Herrmann

The majority of adolescents in Massachusetts, at some point, engage in behaviors that could subject them to delinquency proceedings in Juvenile Court. Although most of those adolescents are unlikely to engage in that type of behavior more than once or twice, even those who are otherwise not at risk for reoffending are significantly more likely to reoffend once they are arrested, charged, and processed in juvenile court.