The Supreme Judicial Court clarified the state trial court's interpretation of the sealing statute in response to a defendant attempting to appeal his conviction in a child sexual assault case, where the jury found him not guilty of several counts in the indictment.
Mark Gravito and his attorney sought access to the records related to the counts for which he was cleared in order to prepare his appeal. A Bristol County Superior Court justice, following guidance released last year by the trial court, allowed the appellate attorney to view and, eventually, take notes on the materials in the courthouse, under the supervision of a staff member.
Gravito appealed, saying his counsel needed copies in order to go over the materials with him and assess the potential grounds for a legal challenge.
The SJC concluded that the trial court's interpretation of the statute went too far, failing to take into account the intent of lawmakers to protect the "defendant's privacy and society's interest in reintegration following an acquittal by precluding public access that might otherwise thwart a defendant's economic and other relationships," not hinder him from pursuing his rights, Justice Dalila Wendlandt wrote for the court.
"Nothing in the legislative history suggests the Legislature intended to limit the defendant's own access to his sealed criminal records, let alone to preclude appellate counsel from accessing records necessary to provide effective assistance on appeal," Justice Wendlandt wrote.
While the trial court had created an "opt-out" provision that provided a defendant with a window of time following trial to ask that the record not be sealed, nothing in the legislative history shows lawmakers intended to force someone into choosing between the "benefit of having his acquittals sealed and his right to the effective assistance of counsel on appeal," Justice Wendlandt wrote for the court.
The sealing statute, in its original form, dates back to the early 1970s, during an earlier era of criminal justice reform, but was later deemed unconstitutional by the First Circuit in a 1989 case involving a newspaper's challenge, Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski.
The statute went unenforced for nearly a quarter of a century, until 2023, when the SJC concluded in Commonwealth v. J.F.
that an acquittal, a grand jury's decision not to indict or a finding of no probable cause are not subject to the First Amendment's presumption of public access.Between the Pokaski case and J.F., the state also adopted a criminal justice reform measure in 2018 that created an opportunity for defendants to request sealing of court files provided certain conditions were met.
The state's Criminal Offender Records Information, or CORI, system also restricts access to an individual's criminal history, the court noted, to prevent employers or landlords from obtaining information, something that "indicate[s] that the Legislature was concerned with the collateral consequences of criminal records."
However, under that law, a defendant has the right to view that information, even if it is otherwise not publicly available, the court said.
Allowing access to a record in the courthouse "therefore harmonizes the statute with the CORI Act," the court said.
The Bristol County District Attorney's office, which prosecuted Gravito, had objected to the limited unsealing, suggesting during arguments that the defendant was trying to have it both ways. That argument did not appear to convince the justices, with one asking what the downside would be for prosecutors, who continue to have access to the materials.
The case also drew friend of the court briefs from several advocacy organizations who said a defendant may need access to records of an acquittal for a wide variety of reasons beyond an appeal, such as during parole or immigration proceedings, though the court did not specifically address those sorts of requests.
Messages seeking comment from counsel for Gravito and from the Bristol District Attorney did not immediately receive responses on Tuesday.
Gravito is represented by Joshua M. Daniels.
The Bristol County District Attorney is represented by its own Rachel J. Eisenhaure and David B. Mark.
The case is Commonwealth v. Gravito, case number SJC-13705, in the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
--Editing by Philip Shea.