491 Mass. 824
Mass.2023Background
- J.F. was indicted on six violent felony counts (including aggravated rape, armed robbery, kidnapping with sexual assault, and firearm possession) after a 2014 grand jury return.
- At the December 2015 trial the judge granted required findings of not guilty on some firearm-related allegations; the jury acquitted J.F. on one aggravated rape count and deadlocked on three other counts, producing a mistrial as to those counts.
- In March 2018 the Commonwealth filed a nolle prosequi on the three deadlocked counts because the alleged victim became unavailable to testify; J.F. therefore incurred no convictions from the case.
- J.F. petitioned under G. L. c. 276, § 100C (Aug. 27, 2021) to seal records relating both to the acquittals and to the nol prossed counts; the Commonwealth opposed and the trial judge denied the petition.
- J.F. appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court granted direct review and addressed (1) whether § 100C first paragraph records are subject to a First Amendment presumption of access and (2) whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying sealing as to the nolle prosequi counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether records of cases ending in acquittal, a grand‑jury no‑bill, or court finding of no probable cause are subject to a First Amendment presumption of access | Commonwealth: First Amendment presumption applies (relying on Pokaski/First Circuit); sealing requires demonstrating sealing clearly outweighs public access | J.F.: §100C first par. plainly mandates automatic sealing (unless defendant objects); Pon resolves constitutional concerns | Held: No First Amendment presumption applies to the nonconvictions enumerated in §100C first par.; Legislature clearly abrogated the common‑law presumption by mandatory statutory language |
| Whether §100C first paragraph mandates sealing when only some charges in a case are acquitted | Commonwealth: statute should not be read to apply when the overall case includes other unresolved/convicted counts | J.F.: plain language requires sealing of the court appearance/disposition for any enumerated nonconviction, even if other counts in the same case remain | Held: §100C first par. applies to the individually favorable dispositions (sealing required for the acquitted/no‑bill/no‑probable‑cause counts); the court rejects Commonwealth's narrow reading |
| Standard and burden for sealing records where a nolle prosequi or dismissal is entered (§100C second paragraph) | Commonwealth: trial judge applied Pon’s balancing/good‑cause framework appropriately | J.F.: judge misapplied the good‑cause standard, made factual errors, and failed to weigh Pon factors properly | Held: For nolle prosequi counts, the judge abused his discretion in weighing factors and making factual findings; remand for reconsideration applying Pon factors and articulating reasoning |
| Remedy for trial judge’s error regarding acquitted counts and the nolle prosequi counts | Commonwealth: denial should be affirmed | J.F.: acquitted counts must be sealed automatically; nolle prosequi counts require proper balancing on remand | Held: Acquittal counts must be sealed under §100C first par. (unless J.F. affirmatively asks otherwise); the nolle prosequi counts are remanded for the judge to clarify factual findings and to reassess sealing under the good‑cause balancing test from Pon |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296 (Mass. 2014) (rejected First Amendment presumption for nolle/dismissal records and articulated common‑law "good cause" balancing factors and procedure for sealing)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski, 868 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1989) (First Circuit recognized a First Amendment right of access to criminal records and invalidated automatic sealing under §100C as applied)
- Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (established two‑part historical/functional test for First Amendment access to judicial proceedings and records)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (acknowledged general public right to inspect court records is not absolute)
- Commonwealth v. Doe, 420 Mass. 142 (Mass. 1995) (applied Pokaski to §100C second paragraph and required the high standard later lowered by Pon)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (public and press access to trials protects the right of public scrutiny)
- Commonwealth v. Vickey, 381 Mass. 762 (Mass. 1980) (discussed sealing remedies tied to presumption of innocence)