Legal battle intensifies over detention of defendants without lawyers in Mass.
The state's public defender agency is asking a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to override a district court judge and release five defendants who don't have lawyers amid the ongoing bar advocate work stoppage in Massachusetts.
But prosecutors in Suffolk County are asking the justice to allow judges to hold some defendants in custody, or to keep their cases pending, in an effort to mitigate the public safety impacts.
The dueling motions came nearly two months into the work stoppage, which has led to the dismissal of more than 100 criminal cases and release of dozens of defendants.
The Committee for Public Counsel Services filed the emergency motion on Sunday, essentially claiming a Lowell District Court judge overrode the protocol in place to address the work stoppage by ordering defendants facing serious charges to remain held. But the actions of that judge appear to closely mirror what prosecutors are asking the justice to now allow.
The protocol, known as Lavallee, requires anyone in custody who is not represented by a lawyer to be released after seven days, but only if there has not been a "good faith" effort to find them representation.
Lowell District Court Judge John Coffey has been presiding over Lavallee hearings for those in custody for a week or more in the Middlesex and Suffolk County district courts since the protocol went into place earlier this month. CPCS claims Coffey has used the "good faith" finding requirement as a tool to keep some defendants in custody.
"Indeed, in several cases, the judge explicitly ruled that CPCS had not made good faith efforts because the Commonwealth moved for a dangerousness hearing," CPS wrote.
The agency is asking Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt to force Coffey to release five defendants: Solomon Kwaku Adomako, Enrique Diaz, Joshua Mazzilli, Ranjay Scott and Matthew Spear.
The cases
Adomako and Diaz were both brought before Coffey on July 9 — the first day Lavallee hearings got underway in the district courts.
CPCS told Coffey it had identified conflicts of interest that made it impossible for any of its staff attorneys to represent either man. But Coffey found the agency hadn't made a good faith effort to find either man a lawyer and ordered them held.
Adomako and Diaz are both charged with carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a loaded firearm without a license. Adomako faces an additional charge of manufacturing an untraceable firearm, while Diaz is also charged with possession of a Class B drug and giving law enforcement officers a fake ID.
Both men appeared before Coffey again a week later, on July 16.
Despite further information from CPCS about the efforts it had undertaken to find lawyers for the men, Coffey ordered them detained another week.
A week later, Adomako and Diaz still didn't have lawyers, but Coffey wouldn't budge. On that day, Coffey found the agency hadn't made a good faith effort to find a lawyer for Scott, who is charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault and battery on a family/household member.
Scott was on probation for a 2024 case where he was charged with violating an abuse prevention order.
That day, Coffey also ordered Mazzilli remain in custody. Mazzilli is charged with carrying a gun without a license, carrying a loaded gun without a license, operating a motor vehicle with a revoked license as a habitual traffic offender, a number plate violation to conceal his identity and operating an unregistered motor vehicle.
Spear also appeared before Coffey for a Lavallee hearing on July 23. He is charged with a single count of assault and battery on a household member.
CPCS had conflicts in all six cases, according to the motion, barring it from representing any of the defendants even if its offices had the capacity to do so.
The argument
In its filing, CPCS notes that the Lavallee decision first published by the SJC in 2004 does not allow a carveout to be made for those facing serious charges.
Thus, the agency writes, Coffey's finding the agency didn't make a good faith effort to find lawyers in those five cases is "legally erroneous."
"The court improperly applied a different, overly stringent standard to evaluate CPCS's good faith efforts in these cases when the same standard applies equally to all cases," the motion reads. "Had the judge applied the proper legal standard, it would have necessarily found that CPCS made good faith efforts in the cases before the court. These defendants are entitled to release."
CPCS went before Wendlandt on a separate issue Monday afternoon — whether the protocol should be implemented in juvenile courts in several counties amid the ongoing work stoppage.
So-called bar advocates represent about 80% of criminal defendants in the state, with CPCS taking on the other 20%. But since late May, most bar advocates have refused to take on new cases as they press legislators for better pay.
New motion from prosecutors
Also on Monday, the Suffolk district attorney's office asked Wendlandt to modify her order implementing the Lavallee protocol.
Prosecutors are asking Wendlandt to allow judges to hold defendants past the seven-day mark, or to not dismiss cases for those who have been unrepresented for 45 days, in certain circumstances. The district attorney's office cites the ongoing public safety impact of the protocol, particularly with hundreds of cases on the brink of being dismissed.
"Urgent and targeted modification is necessary to address today's realities and restore an appropriate balance between the rights of indigent defendants and the protection of public safety," prosecutors wrote. "As currently applied, the Protocol has largely failed — not because its original aims were flawed, but because those aims were designed for a limited and manageable crisis in 2004."
"The criminal justice system in Suffolk County has come to a dangerous impasse," the filing continues.
More News
Read the original article on MassLive .
