CRIMINAL LAW

, , , , , ,

Clemency Hearing Raises the Question of Whether Massachusetts’ Courts Are Ready to Extend the Prohibition on LWOP Sentences Beyond Eighteen

, , , , , ,

By Stevie Leahy

In 1997, William Allen was convicted of armed robbery and felony murder and is currently serving a sentence of life without parole (“LWOP”). At the time of these crimes, Mr. Allen was twenty years old. For individuals like Mr. Allen, the executive clemency process is currently the only avenue to correct the missteps of the legal system, specifically as to sentencing under since-changed laws. The urgent need for clemency in his case raises the broader question of whether LWOP sentences for late adolescents are even constitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Increased use of clemency as well as judicial action to extend the age limit are two measures that would also work toward mitigating disproportionate rates of incarceration for Black and Brown individuals within the state . . .

, , , , , ,

Smartphones and Compelled Decryption: An Interview with Attorney David Rangaviz

, , , , , ,

By David Rangaviz and Miranda Jang

Under what circumstances can a citizen be forced to unlock their smartphone for government inspection? On March 6, 2019, the Supreme Judicial Court decided Commonwealth v. Dennis Jones, in which the Court held that the government can compel a suspect to unlock their smartphone, and so disclose all of its contents, if it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect knows the passcode to the phone in question. The SJC held that the only “testimonial” aspect to an act of decryption is just the person saying that he or she knows the code to the target phone. Jones was the first decision from any state supreme court in the country to set out the constitutional rules around compelled decryption, which is one of the most significant self-incrimination issues in the digital age . . .

, ,

UPDATE – Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Finds Doctrine of Abatement Ab Initio Outdated, Reinstates Aaron Hernandez’s Conviction

, ,

By Monica Delateur

On April 19, 2017, former New England Patriots football player Aaron Hernandez committed suicide at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center outside of Boston, Massachusetts.  At the time of Hernandez’s death, the appeal of Hernandez’s conviction for the murder of Odin Lloyd was pending in front of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. This high-profile suicide sparked a debate around the doctrine of abatement ab initio, applied in Massachusetts as well as a number of states at the time of Hernandez’s death . . .

, , ,

In a Post-Michelle Carter World, Be Careful What You Say

, , ,

By Laurel Newman

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (SJC) recently affirmed Michelle Carter’s conviction of involuntary manslaughter for her role in the suicide of Conrad Roy. The case has been especially newsworthy since before the trial occurred, due to Ms. Carter’s indictment resting solely on spoken and written words that the Commonwealth says coerced the victim to commit suicide. As this author previously wrote, this case is the first where a defendant has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter without doing any physical act . . .

,

Michelle Carter Conviction: Words Alone May Finally be Enough

,

By Laurel Newman

In the wake of the Michelle Carter decision, many questioned how Ms. Carter’s actions amounted to involuntary manslaughter. While the facts of this case have been found to satisfy involuntary manslaughter, Carter’s actions may have been more appropriately and effectively handled by cyberbullying laws . . .

Physical Evidence of Certain Opioids Banned from Massachusetts Trial Courts

By Monica Delateur

The concern and devastating consequences of the Northeast’s opioid epidemic has taken an unexpected turn impacting trial courts and prosecutions. Effective January 8, 2018, substances containing any amount of fentanyl or carfentanil are banned from Massachusetts trial courthouses. Chief Justice of the Trial Court Paula Carey iterated the Trial Court‘s new policy in a memo, stating that the substances will only be allowed in the courtroom in very limited circumstances, including through a valid prescription where medical need requires use during the court day.