Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Hears Appeal of Former District Attorney
Former District Attorney Appeals Contempt of Court Ruling
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard oral arguments in the case of former District Attorney Thomas F. Reilly, who is appealing a contempt of court ruling.
Reilly was held in contempt after he refused to comply with a court order to release certain documents related to the investigation of a fatal police shooting.
The SJC is now considering whether the lower court erred in finding Reilly in contempt. The outcome of the appeal could have implications for the balance of power between prosecutors and the courts.
Background of the Case
In 2012, police officer John Ashcraft fatally shot 20-year-old Ramarley Graham in the Bronx. Reilly, who was the Bronx District Attorney at the time, declined to prosecute Ashcraft, citing a lack of evidence.
In 2016, a federal grand jury indicted Ashcraft on civil rights charges. Reilly's office was subpoenaed to produce documents related to the investigation, but Reilly refused, claiming that the documents were protected by prosecutorial privilege.
The lower court found Reilly in contempt and ordered him to produce the documents. Reilly appealed the ruling to the SJC.
Arguments of the Parties
Reilly's attorney, Daniel Marino, argued that the lower court erred in finding Reilly in contempt because the documents were protected by prosecutorial privilege.
The state's attorney, John Pappalardo, argued that the lower court's ruling was correct because the documents were not protected by prosecutorial privilege.
Implications of the Case
The outcome of the appeal could have implications for the balance of power between prosecutors and the courts.
If the SJC upholds the lower court's ruling, it would strengthen the authority of the courts to order prosecutors to produce documents.
If the SJC overturns the lower court's ruling, it would strengthen the authority of prosecutors to withhold documents from the courts.
The SJC is expected to issue a ruling in the case in the coming months.
Comments