Commonwealth v. Wanis
426 Mass. 639 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant has a right to obtain statements of percipient witnesses from a police department’s internal affairs division via a Mass. R. Crim. P. 17 motion without a special showing of relevance or need, though other internal affairs records require a specific, good faith showing of relevance and material benefit to the defense.
Facts:
- On the evening of February 6, 1997, Officer Lamattina of the Boston police department was performing a paid detail near Faneuil Hall.
- Lamattina observed three men, including the defendants, passing through an area secured by yellow police tape.
- When Lamattina told the men the area was blocked off for safety and asked them to walk around it, one of the men raised a cane above his head in a threatening manner.
- As Lamattina attempted to subdue this man, another man reached into his jacket pocket, while the third attempted to intervene on behalf of the other two.
- Fearing for his safety, Lamattina removed his service revolver from its holster and ordered all three men to stand against a wall.
- Back-up officers arrived, and the three men (the defendants) were arrested on various charges, including assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, assault and battery on a police officer, resisting arrest, and being a disorderly person.
- Four days later, one of the defendants filed a complaint against Officer Lamattina with the Boston police department.
- The police department’s internal affairs division took statements from percipient witnesses as part of its ongoing investigation into the complaint.
Procedural Posture:
- Counsel for two of the defendants moved for the production of evidence from the records of the police department and of the Commonwealth.
- A judge of the Boston Municipal Court Department entered an order requiring that each defendant "receive all statements relating to this case by police, other witnesses and co-defendants in the custody of the Commonwealth including police department" after allowing the police department to argue its position.
- The Boston police department and the Commonwealth then separately filed complaints with a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking relief from these interlocutory orders.
- The single justice reserved and reported the two cases to the full Supreme Judicial Court on a record consisting of the complaints and the defendants’ oppositions.
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 a criminal defendant have a right to obtain statements of percipient witnesses gathered by a police department's internal affairs division, and if so, what showing is required and what is the proper procedural mechanism?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, CJ
Yes, a criminal defendant does have a right to obtain statements of percipient witnesses gathered by a police department's internal affairs division, and this is generally achieved through a Mass. R. Crim. P. 17 motion without a special showing. The court concluded that a defendant’s right of access to information gathered by an internal affairs division does not depend on whether the materials are disclosable as public records under G. L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth. Even if statutory exemptions apply, a criminal defendant may still have a right to obtain such documents through normal criminal discovery procedures. The court clarified that the Commonwealth (prosecution) should not be ordered to produce internal affairs documents if there is no showing that the prosecutor had access to these materials or that the police department was obliged to provide them, as Mass. R. Crim. P. 14 applies to exculpatory facts within the prosecutor's possession, custody, or control. However, acknowledging constitutional rights under Brady v. Maryland, the court held that a judge should normally issue a subpoena (Mass. R. Crim. P. 17) to the internal affairs division for statements of percipient witnesses, as these statements are plainly relevant and potentially exculpatory (for impeachment), and no special showing of relevance or need is required for their production. For other information in internal affairs records (beyond percipient witness statements), a defendant must make a specific, good faith showing (usually by affidavit) that the information is relevant to a material issue in the criminal proceedings and could be of real benefit to the defense. The decision to order production lies in the discretion of the trial judge, who may also conduct an in camera review in certain circumstances.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the delicate balance between a criminal defendant's right to discover potentially exculpatory evidence and the need to protect the integrity and confidentiality of police internal affairs investigations. By distinguishing between percipient witness statements and other internal affairs records, the court established a clear, two-tiered standard for discovery, making the former more easily accessible while requiring a higher threshold for the latter. This ruling shifts the burden of production for percipient witness statements directly to the police department via subpoena, rather than through the prosecution, which has significant implications for how defendants can gather evidence for their defense and for the police department's discovery obligations.
