Commonwealth v. Washington W.,462 Mass. 204 (2012)
I. Procedural History
On August 13, 2008, Washington W., a juvenile, filed a motion seekingdiscovery of statistical data concerning the district attorney’s prosecutionof juvenile sexual assault charges. A Juvenile Court judge denied themotion without prejudice. After the Supreme Judicial Court’s (“SJC”)decision in Commonwealth v. Bernardo,
the juvenile filed a reneweddiscovery motion that was allowed on March 30, 2009. The Court orderedthe Commonwealth to produce discovery no later than May 4, 2009. Afterdenial of the Commonwealth’s motion for reconsideration, a new June 4,2009 production deadline was set. On June 2, the Commonwealth movedfor relief from that order. The judge denied the motion, but extended thedeadline to June 19, 2009. On June 12, the Commonwealth filed a petitionfor interlocutory review of the discovery order with the SJC. On June 25,2010, the SJC affirmed the order.
In December 2009, the Commonwealth indicted the juvenile as ayouthful offender for two incidents of rape of a child. On March 2, 2010,the juvenile moved to dismiss the indictments. On July 2, 2010, the judgegranted the motion to dismiss without prejudice.
At a status hearing on July 8, 2010, the juvenile filed a renewed motionfor the statistical discovery, which the prosecutor promised to deliver atthe next scheduled court date. At the next court date, August 12, 2010, theCommonwealth failed to produce the discovery and informed that judgethat it no longer considered itself legally obligated to provide it because theindictments had been dismissed. The judge noted that the Commonwealth
453 Mass. 158, 169 (2009) (holding that discovery requests pertaining to a defendant’sclaim of selective prosecution may be granted where the defendant has “made a thresholdshowing of relevance” under Mass. R. Crim. P. 14).
Commonwealth v. Washington W., 462 Mass. 204, 206 (2012).
Id. at 206.