Criminal – Detention – Due process

Listen to this article

Where a single justice denied a petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to G.L.c. 211, §3, the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief, as the petitioner’s detention did not shock the conscience or otherwise violate substantive due process.

“The defendant appeals from the judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to G.L.c. 211, §3. This case requires us to consider the constitutional limits on the pretrial detention of a defendant who has been found incompetent to stand trial and, in particular, whether the framework articulated in Abbott A. v. Commonwealth, 458 Mass. 24, 37-41 (2010), applies where detention results not from a determination of dangerousness under G.L.c. 276, §58A, but from the defendant’s inability to post cash bail. Because the substantive due process principles underlying Abbott A. are not confined to any single statutory mechanism of detention, we conclude that its framework governs the constitutional inquiry in this context. We affirm. …

“To the extent there was uncertainty whether the Abbott A. analysis applies outside the context of detention for dangerousness under G.L.c. 276, §58A, our precedent indicates that it does. … We now make explicit what those decisions reflect: the Abbott A. framework governs the due process inquiry where an incompetent defendant is detained due to an inability to post cash bail. …

“Applying the Abbott A. framework here, we conclude that the defendant’s detention did not exceed the reasonable period necessary to assess the likelihood of restoration and was not otherwise unreasonable. …

“The judgment of the single justice is affirmed.”

In the Matter of an Impounded Case (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-048-26) (14 pages) (Georges, J.) The case was heard by Dewar, J., sitting as single justice. Ross E. Schreiber for the petitioner; Kenneth E. Steinfield for the commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-13678) (May 6, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.