Massachusetts

Overview

Massachusetts is often seen as a bastion of progressive jurisprudence, with a rich tradition of legal innovation and civil rights litigation. Yet when it comes to enforcing Brady and Giglio obligations, the Commonwealth has long operated behind a curtain of secrecy. Despite judicial recognition of the duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment material, Massachusetts does not mandate a centralized Brady or Giglio list, lacks uniform standards for disclosure across prosecutorial offices, and only recently began to open law enforcement disciplinary records to limited public scrutiny. The state’s history of high-profile scandals—including the state drug lab crises and the Boston Police Department's longstanding tolerance of misconduct—has exposed the systemic failure to track and disclose information essential to due process. While some reforms have emerged in recent years, institutional inertia and prosecutorial discretion continue to undermine consistent candor in the courtroom.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Massachusetts has 11 District Attorneys and a central Office of the Attorney General that handles certain criminal matters, including complex prosecutions and appeals. Disclosure obligations are governed by Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(a)(1)(A)(iii), which requires the prosecution to disclose all exculpatory evidence—including information that could impeach the credibility of government witnesses. The Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 3.8(d)) likewise require prosecutors to turn over any evidence that tends to negate guilt, mitigate punishment, or affect sentencing.

Police officers in the Commonwealth are certified and overseen by the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission, created in 2020 as part of a sweeping police reform bill. POST is now authorized to decertify officers for misconduct, including dishonesty—but there is still no statutory requirement that findings of credibility impairment be reported to prosecutors or tracked for Brady purposes.

Additionally, Massachusetts law previously shielded most internal affairs records from public access. Recent changes to the Public Records Law have begun to peel back those protections, but full transparency remains elusive.

Historical Context

Massachusetts has experienced a series of credibility-related legal catastrophes that underscore the need for institutionalized Giglio tracking and disclosure. Most infamously, the Annie Dookhan and Sonja Farak drug lab scandals—both involving state chemists who falsified evidence and lied under oath—led to the dismissal of over 35,000 drug convictions and triggered federal and state investigations. In both cases, prosecutors failed to timely disclose the scope of misconduct, even when it was known internally.

The Boston Police Department (BPD) has also repeatedly employed officers with sustained findings of dishonesty, violence, or sexual assault—often without disclosing that history to prosecutors or defense counsel. A 2021 review revealed that multiple officers on the BPD payroll had prior criminal convictions, some undisclosed to the courts.

Despite these scandals, Massachusetts has been slow to enact systemic reforms. Each district attorney’s office operates its own discretionary policy for tracking and disclosing credibility-related misconduct, and there is no central Giglio registry accessible to the public or to defense counsel.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights ensures due process and confrontation rights under Articles 12 and 14, paralleling the U.S. Constitution.

Key disclosure laws and policies include:

• Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(a)(1)(A)(iii): Requires disclosure of any “material and relevant evidence,” including that which may be favorable to the accused or impeach state witnesses.

• Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(d): Requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory and mitigating evidence.

• M.G.L. c. 66 § 10 (Public Records Law): Amended in 2016 to narrow exemptions and permit greater access to government records, including certain police misconduct files.

• POST Commission Regulations (2022–present): Require agencies to report officer discipline, but do not mandate disclosure to prosecutors or link certification status to Giglio tracking.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

Massachusetts courts have addressed Brady and Giglio in multiple decisions but have rarely imposed structural obligations:

• Commonwealth v. Tucceri, 412 Mass. 401 (1992): Recognized that the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence—even if not intentionally withheld—can constitute a due process violation.

• Commonwealth v. Francis, 375 Mass. 211 (1978): Held that material impeachment evidence regarding police misconduct must be disclosed.

• Commonwealth v. Cotto, 471 Mass. 97 (2015): Emphasized that prosecutors have a duty to learn of and disclose favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf, including police.

However, the courts have stopped short of requiring prosecutors to maintain Brady Lists or to share information across offices or jurisdictions.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

The Massachusetts POST Commission was created by the 2020 Police Reform Act to centralize oversight of officer certification and discipline. It has the power to decertify officers for misconduct and has begun publishing annual “Law Enforcement Officer Decertification Lists.” While a critical first step, this mechanism is not yet tied to prosecutorial disclosure workflows, and many decertified or suspended officers were not previously flagged in court.

Police departments conduct their own internal affairs investigations and are not required by law to notify prosecutors of findings relevant to credibility. Some do so voluntarily; others do not. There is no uniform training requirement for officers on Brady or Giglio obligations.

Each District Attorney’s office adopts its own approach to Giglio compliance. Some, like Suffolk County, maintain internal Do Not Call lists, but these are typically not public and vary in rigor. Smaller jurisdictions often lack written policies altogether.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

Massachusetts has no statewide body responsible for enforcing prosecutorial disclosure or auditing Brady/Giglio compliance. Misconduct by prosecutors is handled by the Board of Bar Overseers (BBO), but public discipline is exceedingly rare and generally reserved for egregious violations.

Although the POST Commission and the Civil Rights Division of the Attorney General’s Office have investigatory powers, they are not empowered to enforce compliance with disclosure obligations or to track systemic failures across agencies.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Annie Dookhan Scandal (2003–2012)
   Dookhan, a state chemist, admitted to falsifying lab results, dry-labbing evidence, and lying under oath. Prosecutors failed to disclose the breadth of the problem after it was discovered, resulting in over 21,000 drug convictions being overturned.

2. Sonja Farak Scandal (2004–2013)
   Farak, another state chemist, used drugs from her own lab and tampered with evidence. The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office delayed disclosure of documents showing the scope of her misconduct, leading to further vacated convictions and public outrage.

3. Boston Police Officer Patrick Rose (1995–2020)
   Despite a 1995 internal affairs finding that Rose had likely committed sexual assault on a child, he was reinstated and allowed to serve until his 2020 arrest. He testified in numerous cases during that time—none of which included Giglio disclosures.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases illustrate that even in a state with highly competent institutions, systemic failure to institutionalize disclosure obligations can cause widespread harm. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges often operated in informational silos—while evidence undermining trust in key witnesses was buried, lost, or never documented. The absence of structural tracking systems allowed bad actors to operate for years without challenge, and even when misconduct was known, disclosure failures were common.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Statewide Giglio List: Each DA's office determines its own disclosure policies, leading to inconsistency and non-disclosure.

• Limited Interagency Reporting: Police departments are not required to share internal affairs findings with prosecutors.

• Delayed Public Access to POST Data: Although POST now publishes decertification data, there is a lag in transparency and coordination with courts.

• No Independent Audit Mechanism: Massachusetts lacks a disclosure compliance body or prosecutor accountability board.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Prosecutorial resistance, political caution, and data privacy laws have combined to limit reform. Some district attorneys have argued that Brady and Giglio information should remain confidential to protect officer reputations, while law enforcement unions have litigated aggressively against broader disclosure. Legislative attempts to mandate broader public access to disciplinary files or require DA offices to maintain Brady Lists have stalled.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Mandate a Statewide Giglio List Across All Prosecutorial Offices
   Require DA offices to maintain, update, and share a list of officers with credibility issues, coordinated with POST and accessible to defense attorneys.

2. Require Law Enforcement to Report Credibility-Related Misconduct to Prosecutors
   Enact legislation requiring agencies to notify the relevant DA when an officer is found to have lied, committed perjury, falsified evidence, or violated civil rights.

3. Standardize POST–Prosecutor Communication
   Create formal channels between the POST Commission and all DA offices to flag decertified or suspended officers for Giglio purposes.

4. Training for Prosecutors and Police
   Require that Brady/Giglio obligations be taught during certification and regularly as part of continuing legal and professional education.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Expand Public Access to Sustained Officer Misconduct Records
   Reform the Public Records Law to ensure that all sustained findings related to credibility or abuse are subject to public access and pretrial disclosure.

2. Establish a Prosecutorial Accountability Unit
   Create a statewide unit to audit Brady/Giglio compliance, review cases involving known credibility-impaired officers, and issue public reports.

3. Launch a Redacted, Public Giglio Portal
   Provide an official, searchable platform that includes redacted summaries of officers found to have engaged in behavior triggering Giglio obligations.

4. Cross-Jurisdictional Coordination Requirements
   Require that DA offices report credibility-compromised officers to a central clearinghouse and notify neighboring jurisdictions when officers testify across county lines.

Conclusion

Massachusetts has the legal foundation to enforce candor in its criminal courts—but not the architecture. Until it institutionalizes Brady and Giglio disclosures, the Commonwealth will continue to experience preventable injustices, prolonged litigation, and public mistrust. The lessons of Dookhan, Farak, and Rose are clear: candor must not depend on the diligence of individuals alone. It must be built into the system—mandatory, monitored, and transparent—because in Massachusetts, as elsewhere, truth is not just an ethical duty. It is a constitutional one.