SJC solicits briefs for upcoming cases

Listen to this article

The Supreme Judicial Court is seeking briefs in the following cases:

SJC-13929, Commonwealth v. Jironvil

The issues:

Whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial, including:

(1) whether the defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress location data derived from E-Z Pass toll records on the grounds that the data was produced in violation of a statutory guarantee of confidentiality contained in the MBTA’s enabling statute, G.L.c. 6C, §13 (a), which thereby vested the defendant with a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data;

(2) whether the commonwealth’s withholding of evidence obtained by a geofence search warrant, which consisted of data showing that the defendant’s cellphone was not detected near the scene of the crime at the time of the fire, prejudiced the defense;

(3) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult a forensic fire expert;

(4) whether the prosecutor’s questions asking prospective jurors if they would be able to convict someone based solely on circumstantial evidence were improper, and if so, whether the error created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice;

(5) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence and improper closing argument; and

(6) whether the cumulative effect of all the alleged errors necessitates a new trial.

(Note that this case will be argued with SJC-13930, Commonwealth v. Jironvil)

SJC-13930, Commonwealth v. Jironvil

The issues:

Whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial, including:

(1) whether the defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress location data derived from E-Z Pass toll records on the grounds that the data was produced in violation of a statutory guarantee of confidentiality contained in the MBTA’s enabling statute, G.L.c. 6C, §13(a), which thereby vested the defendant with a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data;

(2) whether the commonwealth’s withholding of evidence obtained by a geofence search warrant, which consisted of data showing that the defendant’s cell phone was not detected near the scene of the crime at the time of the fire, prejudiced the defense;

(3) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult a forensic fire expert;

(4) whether the prosecutor’s questions asking prospective jurors if they would be able to convict someone based solely on circumstantial evidence were improper, and if so, whether the error created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice;

(5) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence and improper closing argument;

(6) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the admission of statements made by the defendant, where the prosecutor used a grand jury summons to compel defendant to submit to an interview after she declined to speak to an investigator; and

(7) whether the cumulative effect of all the alleged errors necessitates a new trial.

(Note that this case will be argued with SJC-13929, Commonwealth v. Jironvil)

SJC-13932, Impounded

The issue:

Whether the trial court erred in ordering that a hearing on a civil commitment petition filed pursuant to G.L.c. 123, §16(b), be continued to a date six weeks beyond the 14-day deadline set forth in G.L.c. 123, §7(c), due to court congestion, where the respondent originally requested that the hearing be continued five weeks beyond the 14-day deadline, and later assented to having the hearing advanced to four weeks beyond the 14-day deadline, but objected to any further continuance.

SJC-13933, Cross v. Befree Enterprises, LLC

The issue:

Whether the motion judge erred in allowing the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, including whether the judge erred in concluding that G.L.c. 93, §§78 and 80, which apply to contracts for health club services, did not preclude the enforcement of a waiver of liability signed by the minor plaintiff’s father.

SJC-13934, Impounded

The issues:

Whether a judge in the Juvenile Court erred in declining to dismiss the underlying care and protection matter after vacating an adjudication of unfitness against the father and granting him permanent custody of the nonmarital child, on the basis that custody would revert to the unfit mother under G.L.c. 209C, §10 (b), unless the father obtained a custody order from the Probate & Family Court, where the appellants argue that the father should be considered a custodial parent, unlike the father in Care & Protection of Jaylen, 493 Mass. 798 (2024), because he was cohabiting with the mother and child before the child’s removal from the home. See Department of Revenue v. C.M.J., 432 Mass. 69, 77-79 (2000).

Whether requiring the father to obtain a custody order from the Probate & Family Court as a prerequisite to dismissing the care and protection proceeding in the Juvenile Court violates principles of equal protection by treating the father differently from a similarly situated mother.

SJC-13935, Commonwealth v. Hanson

The issue:

Whether the motion judge erred in allowing the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, where a search warrant authorized the search of a particular unit in a multiunit residence and where police learned during execution of the warrant that residents of that unit treated an adjacent unit as part of the same dwelling, at which time police proceeded to search the adjacent unit.

Interested parties should file their briefs in the Clerk’s Office at the John Adams Courthouse, Suite 1-400, One Pemberton Square, Boston, MA, 02108-1724. Questions should be directed to 617-557-1020.