Commonwealth v. King
508 N.E.2d 1382, 400 Mass. 283 (1987)
Rule of Law:
The dismissal of an indictment due to police misconduct is not required in the absence of demonstrable prejudice or a substantial threat of prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Facts:
- On February 7, 1982, State Trooper Paul Landry encountered Christopher King and an associate in a station wagon at a rest area.
- During a pat-down of King, Trooper Landry discovered a bullet-proof vest and a firearm.
- King's associate fired at the troopers and fled, after which King was arrested and a search of his vehicle revealed additional firearms and ammunition.
- A multi-state police task force, seeking fugitives associated with King, recruited an informant named Allan Berube.
- The task force arranged for Berube to meet with the incarcerated King on three occasions to gain his confidence and information about the fugitives.
- Police provided Berube with a briefcase containing an electronic transmitter and instructed him to attend King's pre-trial court hearing.
- During the hearing, Berube attempted to place the briefcase near a holding cell to eavesdrop on confidential conversations between King and his attorneys.
- In separate incidents, a Massachusetts State Trooper and a New Jersey State Police major (posing as an attorney) visited King in jail without the knowledge or consent of King's counsel.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher King was indicted in Bristol County Superior Court (trial court) on multiple firearms charges.
- Prior to trial, King filed a motion to dismiss the indictments, arguing egregious misconduct by the State Police violated his constitutional rights.
- The trial judge denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that King had not been prejudiced by the police actions.
- Following a jury-waived trial where King stipulated to the underlying facts, he was convicted on several firearm charges.
- King (appellant) appealed his convictions to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, challenging the denial of his pre-trial motion to dismiss.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does egregious police misconduct, including attempts to electronically surveil attorney-client conversations, require the dismissal of indictments when the defendant cannot demonstrate actual prejudice or a substantial threat of prejudice to his case?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Connor, J.
No, the dismissal of indictments is not required. The court held that even egregious police misconduct does not warrant dismissal of an indictment without a showing of prejudice or a substantial threat of prejudice to the defendant. Here, the trial judge found no prejudice because the misconduct did not impair King's relationship with his counsel, and the prosecution team was not involved in or aware of the task force's actions. The court reasoned that the evidence against King was so overwhelming—he was 'caught redhanded' and later stipulated to the facts—that no trial strategy could have been compromised by the surveillance attempt. Rejecting a per se rule of dismissal, the court emphasized that remedies for misconduct should be tailored to cure prejudice, not to punish police, especially when the misconduct was not perpetrated by the prosecution team and there was no demonstrated need for a prophylactic deterrent.
Dissenting - Abrams, J.
Yes, the indictments should have been dismissed. The dissent argued that the police conduct constituted a 'deliberate and intentional attack' on the sacred attorney-client relationship, which is so outrageous and inexcusable that dismissal is the only appropriate remedy, regardless of prejudice. The dissent criticized the majority for condoning illegal police actions—such as post-indictment interrogation in violation of Massiah and attempted illegal eavesdropping—and for creating a perverse incentive for police agencies to conceal misconduct from prosecutors. The dissent contended that to maintain the integrity of the justice system and deter future misconduct, the court must adopt a prophylactic rule mandating dismissal in cases of such calculated and egregious government wrongdoing.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the high bar for dismissing an indictment based on government misconduct, aligning Massachusetts law with the federal standard from United States v. Morrison. By rejecting a prophylactic rule, the court prioritizes the public's interest in prosecuting crime over punishing police misconduct when that misconduct does not actually harm the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial. This places a significant burden on defendants to prove not only that misconduct occurred, but that it had a tangible, prejudicial effect on their case. The ruling suggests that even shocking police behavior may go unremedied in the criminal case itself if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the prosecution team is insulated from the misconduct.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Commonwealth v. King (1987)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"