Commonwealth v. Forlizzi, 42 N.E.3d 1131

David Forlizzi sought an order in Superior Court requiring the Commonwealth to disclose whether a key cooperating witness had previously served as a confidential informant or cooperating witness.
The Superior Court judge ordered disclosure, reasoning prior cooperation could show bias or hope of reward and thus be relevant to the defense.
The Commonwealth petitioned this court for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, asking review of the interlocutory disclosure order.
A single justice denied the Commonwealth's petition, finding no abuse of discretion because the informant was a percipient, key witness and disclosure could be material to the defense.
The full court considered whether to exercise its supervisory (interlocutory) review power and affirmed the single justice's denial, emphasizing the rarity of interlocutory review absent exceptional circumstances.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Forlizzi's Argument	Held
Whether interlocutory review under G. L. c. 211, § 3 was warranted	Exceptional review required; Commonwealth urged protection of informer privilege and potential chilling effect	Single justice properly denied review; no exceptional circumstances shown	Affirmed denial of interlocutory review; exercise of superintendence is rare and not warranted here
Whether the Superior Court erred in ordering disclosure of prior informant/cooperator status	Disclosure is ordinarily privileged; judge failed to make required findings to overcome privilege; value of disclosure marginal/cumulative and may chill cooperation	Prior cooperation is relevant to bias/hope of benefit; percipient witness testimony is key and disclosure is material to defense	Superior Court's routine interlocutory ruling was not shown to be an abuse of discretion; disclosure order may stand pending trial

Commonwealth v. Cook, 380 Mass. 314 (review of interlocutory matters is disfavored)
Commonwealth v. Richardson, 454 Mass. 1005 (standard for interlocutory review)
Commonwealth v. Jordan, 464 Mass. 1004 (informant identity disclosure issues)
Commonwealth v. Narea, 454 Mass. 1003 (exercise of superintendence sparingly)
Commonwealth v. Charles, 466 Mass. 63 (exceptional systemic issues may warrant review)
Commonwealth v. Kelsey, 464 Mass. 315 (informant identity ordinarily privileged; relevance standard)
Rovario v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (informant disclosure and materiality standard)
Commonwealth v. Elias, 463 Mass. 1015 (routine interlocutory disclosure rulings not ordinarily reviewed)
White v. Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 1017 (single justice review practice)