93 N.E.3d 816
Mass.2018Background
- Commonwealth filed a G. L. c. 123A petition in Dec. 2010 to civilly commit G.F. as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) after qualified examiners found him sexually dangerous. He was confined pending trial.
- The case produced three jury trials (Apr. 2013, Mar. 2014, Jan. 2016), each ending in mistrial for jury deadlock; the Commonwealth sought a fourth trial.
- Much of the multi‑year delay arose from a mix of defense continuances (including requests and counsel medical issues), Commonwealth continuances, and the time required after each mistrial; the petitioner sometimes waived prompt‑trial rights.
- The petitioner contended continued confinement without an SDP finding violated substantive due process and sought dismissal; the Superior Court ordered release pending resolution and reported several legal questions.
- The SJC held a fourth trial is statutorily and constitutionally permissible, but petitioner must be allowed to seek supervised release pending retrial because nearly seven years’ confinement without an SDP finding violates substantive due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the Commonwealth conduct a fourth SDP trial after three mistrials? | Three mistrials bar further retrials; petition should be dismissed. | Statute is silent on limits; mistrials permit retrial. | Fourth trial permitted; statute does not require dismissal and due process not yet violated by retrials here. |
| Does continued strict confinement for ~6–7 years without SDP finding violate due process? | Continued long confinement violates substantive due process; dismissal or release required. | Confinement pending adjudication is authorized by statute; delays fall within exceptions. | Confinement that long absent SDP finding violates substantive due process; petitioner must be allowed to seek supervised release pending retrial. |
| What process and burden govern release pending retrial after a mistrial? | No specific statutory procedure; petitioner entitled to meaningful review. | Commonwealth relied on statute requiring confinement pending trial. | Court must hold adversary supervised‑release hearing; Commonwealth must prove by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions can reasonably assure public safety. |
| What jury proportion is required to find "not sexually dangerous"? | Asymmetrical instruction (10/12 sufficient for not‑dangerous) is required for fairness. | Statute mandates unanimity only for finding of dangerousness; silent for opposite verdict. | Unanimity required both to find sexually dangerous and to find not sexually dangerous; asymmetrical verdict not permitted. |
| May judge impose conditions (bail, electronic monitoring) pending retrial? | Judge lacks express statutory authority. | Court has inherent/power to craft conditions to protect public safety. | Yes; judge may impose bail, electronic monitoring, or other conditions, and release if conditions suffice; detention only if clear and convincing proof no conditions will assure safety. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pariseau, 466 Mass. 805 (Mass. 2014) (delay and supervised‑release analysis under c. 123A)
- Commonwealth v. Blake, 454 Mass. 267 (Mass. 2009) (remedy and timing for judge's post‑trial decision in SDP context)
- Commonwealth v. Knapp, 441 Mass. 157 (Mass. 2004) (balancing public safety and procedural rights under c. 123A)
- Commonwealth v. Nieves, 446 Mass. 583 (Mass. 2006) (elements and proof standard for SDP commitment)
- Gomes v. Gaughan, 471 F.2d 794 (1st Cir. 1973) (due process limits on repeated commitment proceedings)
- Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. 734 (U.S. 1963) (mistrial for jury deadlock permits retrial)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1998) (substantive due process and arbitrary government conduct)