Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case involves BAK Realty, LLC, and Crossing Over, Inc., which operate a sober house in a three-family dwelling in Fitchburg, Massachusetts. The sober house, located in a residential B (RB) district, houses thirteen unrelated individuals recovering from addiction. The City of Fitchburg's zoning ordinances classify the sober house as a boarding house, a use not permitted in the RB district. The plaintiffs argue that the city's zoning ordinances violate the anti-disability discrimination provision of the Zoning Act, G. L. c. 40A, § 3, fourth par., which they interpret as requiring the city to treat the sober house residents as a "family" under local zoning laws.The Superior Court judge granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, annulling the decision of the Fitchburg Zoning Board of Appeals (board). The judge concluded that G. L. c. 40A, § 3, required the city to treat the sober house residents the same as a family or any similar-sized group of unrelated persons, whichever is more favorable. The judge ruled that the city's zoning ordinances could not be enforced against the sober house residents.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and disagreed with the Superior Court's interpretation. The court held that G. L. c. 40A, § 3, fourth par., does not preempt municipalities from defining "family" for zoning purposes. The statute requires that disabled persons in congregate living arrangements be treated the same as either families or similar-sized groups of unrelated persons, but not necessarily both. The court found that the residents of the sober house did not meet the local definition of "family" and were treated the same as any similar group of thirteen unrelated people living together. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court, upholding the board's decision that the sober house was operating as a boarding house, a use not permitted in the RB district. View "BAK Realty, LLC v. City of Fitchburg" on Justia Law

Two minor sisters suffered severe harm while in the custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF). In August 2015, the older sister, then twenty-two months old, manipulated a thermostat dial from her crib, causing the bedroom to overheat. This incident led to her permanent impairment and the death of another foster child. A lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court against several defendants, including four DCF employees, alleging that their failure to fulfill their duties caused the children's harm.The Superior Court denied the employees' motion for summary judgment, which argued they were entitled to qualified immunity. The employees appealed under the doctrine of present execution, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case on its own motion.The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the DCF employees did not violate the children's substantive due process rights, as their conduct was not the proximate cause of the harm suffered. The court held that the employees' omissions, such as failing to conduct more frequent home visits or investigate the presence of a potentially dangerous individual in the foster home, did not foreseeably lead to the children's injuries. Therefore, the employees were entitled to qualified immunity, and the Superior Court's denial of summary judgment was reversed. View "Gotay v. Creen" on Justia Law

In the early morning of October 23, 2013, Colleen Ritzer, a Danvers High School math teacher, was found dead in the woods outside the high school. She had been raped, strangled, and stabbed. The defendant, a fourteen-year-old student in her class, was convicted by a Superior Court jury of first-degree murder, aggravated rape, and armed robbery. The primary issue at trial was whether the defendant lacked criminal responsibility due to mental illness.The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge impeded his ability to present his defense. He raised several issues: the exclusion of expert testimony on brain scans, limitations on expert testimony regarding his statements, improper cross-examination of defense experts, forced disclosure of psychological test data, the use of suppressed statements by the Commonwealth's expert, the denial of a jury instruction on adolescent brain development, insufficient evidence for the aggravated rape and armed robbery convictions, the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, improper prosecutorial conduct in closing arguments, the denial of a change of venue due to pretrial publicity, and the proportionality of his sentence under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the convictions. The court held that the exclusion of the brain scan evidence was within the judge's discretion due to its limited probative value and potential for unfair prejudice. The limitations on expert testimony were also upheld, since the defendant was able to present sufficient evidence of his mental state. The court found no abuse of discretion in the cross-examination of defense experts or the disclosure of psychological test data. The use of the suppressed statements by the Commonwealth's expert did not warrant exclusion of the testimony. The court also found no error in the denial of the jury instruction on adolescent brain development, the sufficiency of the evidence for the aggravated rape and armed robbery convictions, the denial of the motion to suppress, or the prosecutor's closing arguments. The court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to a change of venue and that his sentence was not disproportionate under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. View "Commonwealth v. Chism" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was on trial for murder. During jury deliberations, an argument between two jurors led to allegations of racial bias. The judge conducted a limited inquiry into the matter but did not fully investigate the allegations. The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm.The case was initially tried in the Superior Court Department, where the defendant was found guilty. The defendant appealed, and the Appeals Court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Judicial Court then granted further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and found that the trial judge's limited inquiry into the allegations of racial bias was insufficient. The court held that the judge should have conducted a more thorough investigation to determine whether the alleged racial bias affected the jury's impartiality. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair and impartial trial, free from racial bias.As a result, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the defendant's convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. The court's main holding was that the trial judge's failure to adequately investigate the allegations of racial bias created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, warranting a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth sought to civilly commit a prisoner, previously convicted of a sexual offense, as a "sexually dangerous person" (SDP) under Massachusetts law. The process required expert testimony to establish probable cause and qualified examiners to determine if the case should proceed to trial. The plaintiff, George Mackie, was initially adjudicated as an SDP based on expert reports and testimony, but this decision was later vacated on appeal due to prejudicial error.Mackie then filed separate civil actions against Dr. Katrin Rouse-Weir, a probable cause expert, and Dr. Robert Joss, a qualified examiner, alleging they submitted false reports and testimony. Both defendants moved to dismiss the complaints, claiming immunity. Superior Court judges granted the motions, concluding that the defendants were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. Mackie appealed these decisions.The Appeals Court reversed the dismissals, ruling that the experts were entitled only to qualified immunity, not absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court held that qualified examiners like Joss are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity due to their essential and independent role in the judicial process. The court also concluded that probable cause experts like Rouse-Weir are protected by the litigation privilege, which shields them from liability for their statements made during judicial proceedings. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court judgments dismissing Mackie's complaints against both experts. View "Mackie v. Rouse-Weir" on Justia Law

The case involves Roberto Cruz, who was convicted of two counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen. The incidents occurred when Cruz, nearly sixty years old, hugged and kissed a thirteen-year-old girl, Jane, without her consent. Cruz was also charged with child enticement and simple assault and battery, but the latter charge was dismissed by the Commonwealth before the trial. The jury acquitted Cruz of child enticement and one count of indecent assault and battery but convicted him of the other two counts.Cruz appealed his convictions, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove the assaults were indecent. The Massachusetts Appeals Court agreed, reversing his convictions on the grounds that the conduct did not meet the statutory definition of indecent assault and battery. Following this reversal, Cruz filed a civil lawsuit seeking compensation for wrongful conviction under G. L. c. 258D. The Commonwealth moved for summary judgment, arguing that the reversal did not establish Cruz's innocence of the simple assault and battery charge, which had been dismissed earlier.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the eligibility for compensation under G. L. c. 258D is limited to felony convictions and does not include misdemeanors like simple assault and battery. Therefore, the court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of the Commonwealth's motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court concluded that Cruz met the eligibility requirements for compensation as the reversal of his felony convictions tended to establish his innocence of those charges. View "Cruz v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The case involves a probationer who was arrested during a traffic stop and subsequently charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of a firearm. During the traffic stop, a state trooper observed the vehicle speeding and making unsafe lane changes. Upon stopping the vehicle, the trooper noticed suspicious behavior from the back seat passenger and found drugs and a firearm in the vehicle. The probationer was found to have thrown a bag containing drugs to the back seat passenger as the vehicle was being pulled over.The Superior Court judge found the probationer in violation of his probation conditions, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to state prison. The probationer appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he possessed cocaine with intent to distribute and unlawfully possessed a firearm. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not moving to suppress the evidence on equal protection grounds, alleging racial animosity by the state trooper.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court found sufficient evidence to support the probation violation, including the possession and intent to distribute cocaine and the unlawful possession of a firearm. The court also rejected the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, stating that the exclusionary rule does not generally apply to probation revocation proceedings and that the counsel's performance did not fall below the standard of an ordinary fallible lawyer.The court affirmed the revocation of probation and the denial of the motion for a new hearing. View "Commonwealth v. Gelin" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of sexual offenses against his granddaughter and sentenced to state prison followed by five years of supervised probation. The probation conditions included GPS monitoring and a requirement to stay away from the victim and her family. After his release, the defendant moved to vacate the GPS condition, arguing it was unconstitutional without an individualized determination of its reasonableness, as required by a recent court decision.The Superior Court judge denied the motion, finding the GPS condition reasonable and added exclusion zones for the cities of Framingham and Marlborough, which were not specified in the original sentence. The defendant appealed, arguing that the GPS condition was unreasonable and that adding exclusion zones violated double jeopardy principles.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. It held that the addition of exclusion zones did not violate double jeopardy because the original sentence contemplated such zones. However, the court found that the scope of the exclusion zones, covering entire cities, was overly broad and increased the severity of the defendant's sentence. The court affirmed the GPS condition as reasonable, given the seriousness of the offense and the defendant's moderate risk of reoffense, but remanded for revision of the exclusion zones to be consistent with statutory and probationary goals.The court also directed the probation department to remove GPS monitors from defendants who had not received a reasonableness hearing and to refrain from attaching monitors until such hearings are held, ensuring compliance with constitutional requirements. View "Commonwealth v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

F.A. has been involuntarily committed to state mental health facilities since 1999 after being found not guilty of a sexual offense due to mental illness. In 2020, a District Court judge renewed F.A.'s commitment and imposed a restriction confining F.A. to the buildings and grounds of the facility. F.A. challenged the constitutionality of this restriction.Previously, the Worcester Division of the District Court Department had renewed F.A.'s commitment annually and imposed similar restrictions since 2013. In 2020, F.A. opposed the Commonwealth's motion for the restriction, but the judge granted it after an evidentiary hearing. The judge did not require the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the restriction was necessary. In 2021, a different judge imposed the same restriction without an evidentiary hearing. The Appellate Division of the District Court affirmed the 2020 restriction but vacated the 2021 restriction due to the lack of a hearing. F.A. appealed the 2020 decision, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and found that the 2020 order violated F.A.'s substantive and procedural due process rights. The court held that a restriction under G. L. c. 123, § 16 (e) must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means available. The judge failed to make such findings and did not consider less restrictive alternatives. Additionally, the court found that the judge used an incorrect standard of proof and did not provide timely, specific findings to support the restriction. Consequently, the court vacated the 2020 order. View "In the Matter of F.A." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, all State troopers, filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth and the heads of the State Police and the State Board of Retirement. They claimed that the defendants' policy of denying the accrual of benefits, such as seniority, length-of-service credit, and vacation and sick time while on leave under the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA), violated the act. Additionally, they argued that the policy discriminated against female employees in violation of other state laws.A Superior Court judge dismissed the portion of the complaint alleging violations of the PFMLA. The judge concluded that the act does not guarantee the accrual of benefits during PFMLA leave. The plaintiffs then sought clarification on the interpretation of the act, and the case was reported to the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case to itself for review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the PFMLA does not require employers to guarantee the accrual of vacation and sick time during an employee's leave. The court interpreted the plain language of the statute, particularly sections 2(e) and 2(f), and concluded that while employees must be restored to their previous position with the same status and benefits upon returning from leave, the act does not mandate the continued accrual of benefits during the leave period. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the PFMLA claims and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Bodge v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law