The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced that it would investigate the Boston Globe report to determine if the acquittal rate for Massachusetts OUI bench trials is above the national average and higher than in other Massachusetts criminal cases, according to a report released in the Boston Globe.
This is a shocking announcement given that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court should have no concern over conviction rate statistics. Simply put, there is no way for a court to second guess the decision of a trial justice finding a defendant not guilty. As the judge that hears live testimony, the trial judge is in a unique position to judge credibility and to determine whether the burden of proof has been satisfied.
The SJC investigation sends a clear message that judges should find a certain percentage of OUI defendants guilty. This is a serious threat to the independence of the judiciary. Of course, the report states that it is just an investigation, but the message is clear, with the charge of OUI in Massachusetts, the rate of not guilty verdicts from particular judges will be monitored.
This is a clear example of the independence of the judiciary being influenced by the political agenda of prosecutors, who likely urged the Boston Globe investigation. Would the highest court of Massachusetts investigate a judge whose rate of granting defense motions was below the State average or some national average. The clear signal is that judges with strong views of Constitutional protections and the meaning of proof beyond a reasonable doubt will be disfavored by the State's highest Court.
The standard of what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, proof to a near moral certitude, is a subjective standard where different judges could reasonable reach different conclusions in the same case. Many standards in the law are subjective, such as what constitutes reasonable suspicion for a car stop, probable cause to arrest and what constitutes testimonial evidence under the Sixth Amendment.
While the Boston Globe report raised many issues, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court simply should have no interest in any comparable studies between other states with different jury instructions, prosecutors with greater discretion to reduce or dismiss weak DUI cases and different rules of evidence. The clear motivation of the SJC endorsing and continuing the probe of the Boston Globe is to send a message to Massachusetts judges, OUI conviction rates must increase in bench trials. This is a dangerous threat to the independence of the judiciary. While a journalist clearly can put pressure on the courts as a private business, the SJC should not sanction this intimidation of the judiciary aimed to achieve a desired result in drunk driving cases.
