Rights To Police Misconduct Evidence
If you’re facing criminal charges in Massachusetts, two groundbreaking decisions from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2024 have dramatically strengthened your rights to evidence about police misconduct. These cases – Graham v. District Attorney for the Hampden District1 and Commonwealth v. McFarlane2 – establish powerful new protections that could make the difference between conviction and acquittal. Facing criminal charges in Massachusetts is hard and you need a legal representation to fight for your rights. Here at the Law Office of Matthew W. Peterson, we always fight and defend for your rights.
Why These Cases Matter For Your Defense
For decades, prosecutors have held the cards when it comes to evidence about police officer credibility. Too often, defense attorneys learned about officer misconduct only after convictions, if at all. These two decisions change the game by forcing prosecutors to actively investigate police misconduct and clarify exactly what they must disclose – and when.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. When a police officer testifies against you, their credibility often determines whether a jury believes your version of events or theirs. Evidence that an officer has lied before, used excessive force, or been found liable for violating someone’s rights can completely change how a jury views their testimony. These cases ensure you get that evidence when it exists.
The Springfield Scandal That Sparked Change
The Graham case arose from shocking revelations about the Springfield Police Department. In July 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice released findings from a 27-month investigation revealing that Springfield police officers, particularly in the Narcotics Bureau, routinely violated citizens’ constitutional rights.
Federal investigators found officers “repeatedly punch individuals in the face unnecessarily,” falsified police reports, and faced no accountability despite clear patterns of abuse.
The DOJ documented disturbing specifics: 19% of prisoner injuries between 2013-2019 were caused by punches to the head. In one case, an officer kicked a handcuffed Hispanic juvenile in the face. Another officer punched a 17-year-old riding past on a motorbike. Despite ample evidence, not a single excessive force complaint was sustained against narcotics officers in six years.
When criminal defendants sought evidence about this misconduct for their cases, the Hampden County District Attorney’s Office refused comprehensive disclosure. Six plaintiffs, including defense organizations and individuals convicted based on testimony from these officers, petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court for relief.
The Court's Response: Prosecutors Must Investigate And Disclose
In its January 23, 2024 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the district attorney violated both the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence and the duty to investigate such evidence. The court identified three specific violations:
- First, the DA’s office disclosed adverse credibility findings about officers only on a “discretionary basis” – picking and choosing what to reveal rather than following clear standards.
- Second, they withheld evidence of misconduct when they couldn’t attribute specific bad acts to particular officers, even though such evidence could still undermine the credibility of the unit as a whole.
- Third, they failed to obtain documents the DOJ had reviewed during its investigation.
The court made clear that “evidence need only ‘tend to diminish [a defendant’s] culpability‘” to require disclosure under Brady v. Maryland. This broad standard means prosecutors can’t narrowly define what helps your defense – if evidence might help, they must turn it over.
Most significantly, the court held that when systematic police misconduct is identified, prosecutors have an affirmative duty to investigate. As the court stated, “The district attorney is obligated to learn of the scope of the misconduct so that it can properly meet its duty to investigate and ultimately its duty to disclose.“ This means prosecutors can’t stick their heads in the sand when confronted with evidence of police corruption.
McFarlane Clarifies: When pending Lawsuits Matter
While Graham dealt with proven patterns of misconduct, McFarlane addressed a different question: what about pending civil lawsuits against officers? Denzel McFarlane was convicted of unlawful firearm possession based largely on testimony from Springfield Police Officer Daniel Moynahan. Ten days after the conviction, a federal jury found Moynahan liable for false arrest and false imprisonment in an unrelated case, awarding $45,000 in damages.
McFarlane’s attorney argued the pending lawsuit should have been disclosed before trial. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, drawing a crucial distinction between pending lawsuits and proven misconduct. The court held that “Until a finding of liability has been made, a pending civil lawsuit constitutes an unsubstantiated allegation of police misconduct that does not tend to negate the guilt of the defendant.“
This creates a bright-line rule: prosecutors must disclose findings of civil liability against officers but not mere allegations in pending cases. The court reasoned that civil lawsuits have a lower evidentiary threshold than criminal cases and can be brought by “various private parties with varying motives.” Only after a full judicial process – where evidence is weighed and a decision rendered – do such findings become Brady material requiring disclosure.
New Disclosure Requirements Under Rule 14
These decisions coincide with major changes to Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, effective March 1, 2025.8 The new rule significantly expands disclosure obligations:
- The “prosecution team“ now explicitly includes all police officers involved in investigating or prosecuting your case. If there’s doubt whether an officer is part of the team, “it will likely be resolved in favor of disclosure.“
- The rule requires disclosure of all “items and information favorable to the defense“ – broader language than the previous “exculpatory evidence” standard.
- Critically, Rule 14(a)(2) codifies the prosecutor’s duty to “inform, inquire, collect, disclose, preserve, notify, and record information.” This isn’t passive – prosecutors must actively seek out potentially helpful evidence, including asking officers about misconduct findings.
What Prosecutors Must Now Do
Based on these cases and the new rule, prosecutors have specific obligations:
- They must investigate when credible evidence suggests systematic police misconduct. After the DOJ report on Springfield police, for example, prosecutors couldn’t simply wait for defense requests – they had to proactively determine which cases might be affected.
- They must maintain and check “Brady lists” of officers with credibility issues. At least three Massachusetts district attorneys already maintain such lists, with Middlesex County tracking over 100 officers and Norfolk County listing 38.
- They must disclose sustained findings including internal affairs findings against officers, civil liability judgments, criminal convictions affecting credibility, and evidence of false statements or reports. The duty extends to both work-related and non-work-related misconduct (except expunged records).
- They must inquire regularly – prosecutors can’t claim ignorance about officer misconduct. They must ask officers and check available databases for disqualifying information.
What This Means For Your Defense
These developments create powerful tools for your defense:
- Automatic disclosure means you don’t need to know what to ask for – prosecutors must turn over police credibility evidence without any request from your attorney. This levels the playing field, especially for defendants with limited resources.
- Continuing obligations mean that if new evidence of officer misconduct emerges during your case, prosecutors must immediately disclose it. This protection extends through trial and even to post-conviction proceedings.
- Remedies for violations can include new trials, dismissal of charges in egregious cases, or exclusion of tainted evidence. Courts will examine all withheld evidence collectively to determine if disclosure would have changed the outcome.
Red Flags To Watch For
Several situations should trigger close scrutiny of police credibility in your case:
- If your arresting officer works in a unit under federal investigation or consent decree, comprehensive disclosure about unit-wide problems may be required. When officers from multiple agencies are involved, each agency’s misconduct records must be checked.
- If your case involves common “cover charges” like resisting arrest or assault on a police officer, courts recognize these charges are sometimes used to justify excessive force.
Be especially vigilant if you’re arrested by officers from departments with known problems. The Springfield Police Narcotics Bureau cases show how systematic misconduct can infect numerous prosecutions.
The Difference Between Pending Lawsuits And Proven Misconduct
Understanding the McFarlane distinction is crucial. Pending lawsuits against officers generally need not be disclosed because they’re merely unproven allegations that anyone can file. However, findings of liability – whether in civil court, internal affairs proceedings, or criminal cases – must be disclosed because they represent proven misconduct after full adjudication.
This means your attorney may need to independently investigate pending lawsuits against officers in your case, as prosecutors have no duty to disclose them. Public records requests, civil court dockets, and news reports can reveal important information prosecutors aren’t required to share.
Your Attorney's Role In Enforcing These Rights
These cases empower defense attorneys but also require vigilance. Your attorney should file comprehensive discovery requests citing Graham and the new Rule 14, even though disclosure is automatic. They should investigate testifying officers’ backgrounds independently, including checking civil court dockets and public records.
If prosecutors claim no Brady material exists, your attorney can demand they document their inquiry efforts under the new rule. Motions to compel disclosure should cite specific Graham holdings about the scope of required investigation when systematic misconduct is suspected.
Looking Forward: A New Era of Police Accountability
These decisions mark a watershed moment in Massachusetts criminal justice. For too long, defendants faced an information asymmetry – prosecutors knew about police credibility problems but weren’t required to share that knowledge. Graham and McFarlane, combined with the new Rule 14, create a framework ensuring defendants receive evidence that could undermine police testimony against them.
The timing is significant. These cases arrived as Massachusetts implements a statewide police certification system and POST Commission database documenting officer discipline from 1984-2023. Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan began releasing some Brady disclosures publicly in 2024. The legal landscape is shifting toward transparency.
Conclusion: Know Your Rights And Demand Them
If you’re facing criminal charges in Massachusetts, these cases provide crucial protections. You have the right to know if officers testifying against you have histories of dishonesty, excessive force, or civil rights violations. Prosecutors must actively investigate such misconduct and disclose their findings.
Don’t assume prosecutors will voluntarily comply with these obligations. Work with an attorney who understands these new requirements and will aggressively pursue disclosure of police credibility evidence. In a system where an officer’s word can mean the difference between freedom and incarceration, you deserve to know the whole truth about who’s testifying against you.
Remember:
- Under Graham, prosecutors can’t wait passively for misconduct evidence to surface.
- Under McFarlane, they must disclose proven misconduct, not just rumors.
- Under new Rule 14, they must actively inquire about officers’ credibility issues. These aren’t just legal technicalities – they’re essential protections ensuring you receive a fair trial based on the whole truth, not just the parts that help the prosecution.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has spoken clearly: constitutional fairness requires that defendants know when their accusers have credibility problems. Make sure your defense team holds prosecutors to these standards. Your freedom may depend on it.
Bibliography
Cases:
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
- Commonwealth v. Beal, 429 Mass. 530 (1999).
- Commonwealth v. Correia, 492 Mass. 220 (2023).
- Commonwealth v. Cotto, 471 Mass. 97 (2015).
- Commonwealth v. Frith, 458 Mass. 434 (2010).
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 427 Mass. 816 (1998).
- Commonwealth v. McFarlane, 493 Mass. 385 (2024).
- Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 478 Mass. 369 (2017).
- Commonwealth v. Ware, 471 Mass. 85 (2015).
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
- Graham v. District Attorney for the Hampden District, 493 Mass. 348 (2024).
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
- Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation, 485 Mass. 641 (2020).
- Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Bell, 424 Mass. 573 (1997).
Rules and Statutes:
Government Documents:
