In 2020 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigated the Springfield Police Department and determined that several officers, especially those in narcotics bureau, routinely falsified police reports and “engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force.”
Clearly, any defendant investigated or arrested by such an officer would want to know of the DOJ’s findings. However, the Hampden County District Attorney’s Office has been selective in disclosing this information to defendants.
Today the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that the D.A.’s use of discretion is unlawful:
First, the discretionary approach of the district attorney’s office to disclosing adverse credibility determinations made about the department’s officer witnesses violates the duty of the district attorney’s office of disclose.
Second, the policy of the district attorney’s office of not disclosing instances of officer misconduct when the identity of the offending officer cannot be clearly proven violates the duty of the district attorney’s office to disclose.
To rectify the problem, the SJC is requiring the D.A.’s office to
obtain all records from the department that are known to have been reviewed by the DOJ and, subsequently, disclose them in an electronic format with optical character recognition, subject to a protective order.
The full opinion is attached below.
Law Office of Justin R. McCarthy 