According to Black’s Law Dictionary, habeas corpus is
A writ employed to bring a person before a court, most frequently to ensure that the person’s imprisonment or detention is not illegal.
The Massachusetts Constitution guarantees inmates the right to petition courts for a writ of habeas corpus:
The privilege and benefit of the writ of habeas corpus shall be enjoyed in this Commonwealth in the most free, easy, cheap, expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding twelve months. Part II, c. 6, art. 7, of the Massachusetts Constitution
Additionally, two statutes in Massachusetts provide habeas corpus rights to inmates seeking redress.
G.L. c. 248, Sec. 21 states,
If a person is committed to jail on a criminal accusation for want of bail, a justice of the superior court or of a district court or a trial justice may issue a writ of habeas corpus and cause the prisoner to be brought before him, when it is necessary for the purpose of admitting him to bail pursuant to [G. L. c. 276].
The Supreme Judicial Court has interpreted this statute to mean:
when a person is initially held in custody because he is unable to meet bail (i.e., where he is committed “for want of bail”) and subsequently acquires the means to post bail, he may properly petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 21 so that he may be allowed to post bail (i.e., be admitted to bail) and be immediately released from custody. See SHERIFF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY vs. PAULINO PIRES. 438 Mass. 96
The second Massachusetts statute involving habeas corpus is G.L. c. 248, Sec. 25. This section states that a judge, in his discretion, may issue a writ of habeas corpus in order to “grant bail to a person for whatever cause he has been committed or restrained, or to discharge him as law and justice require.”
A judge’s right to issue a writ of habeas corpus under G.L. c. 248, Sec. 25 is limited in two ways. First, “the court’s discretion to grant a writ of habeas corpus is that it cannot be employed as a substitute for ordinary appellate procedure” and second “it is available only where granting the writ would result in the petitioner’s immediate release from custody.” Again see SHERIFF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY vs. PAULINO PIRES.