In a landmark ruling for the Massachusetts justice system, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has cleared a significant hurdle for individuals with sealed criminal records. In Mark Gravito v. Commonwealth, the court held that sealing a record from the public does not—and should not—seal it from the defendant themselves or their legal counsel.
The Backstory: A “Mixed Verdict” Dilemma
The case involved Mark Gravito, who was tried on six counts involving the sexual abuse of three minors. The outcome was what lawyers call a “mixed verdict”: a jury acquitted him of five counts but found him guilty of one.
Under Massachusetts law, records for charges ending in an acquittal (not guilty) are automatically sealed to protect people from the “collateral consequences” of a criminal record, like difficulty finding a job or housing. However, because Mr. Gravito was appealing his one conviction, his appellate lawyer needed to see the entire trial record, including the parts related to the counts he was acquitted of, to create the best possible appellate brief.
Previously, the process was frustratingly inconsistent:
- Motions to Unseal: Lawyers often had to file formal motions just to see their own client’s files.
- Informal Access: Sometimes, a helpful clerk might let a lawyer take a peek, but there was no guaranteed right.
- Restricted Viewing: In Gravito’s case, a judge originally only allowed his lawyer to view the documents under supervision at the courthouse and take notes; no copies allowed.
Why This Decision Matters
The SJC stepped in to clarify that the “automatic sealing statute” was created to help defendants, not hinder them. Here is why this ruling is a game-changer:
- Effective Legal Representation: An attorney cannot properly appeal a case if they are “blindfolded” to parts of the trial record. This ruling ensures lawyers have the tools they need to provide a fair defense.
- Beyond Appeals: This is a major win for people who need their records for other life-altering reasons, such as immigration proceedings or certain professional licensing, where they must prove the outcome of a past case even if it is sealed from the general public.
- Privacy Stays Intact: The records remain sealed from the public, employers, and landlords. The court simply confirmed that “sealing” means keeping the public out, not keeping the defendant out of their own history.
“A Harmonious Whole”
Justice Dalila Wendlandt, writing for the court, noted that other state laws (like the CORI Act) already allow people to see their own criminal offender information. It only makes sense that the sealing statute should work the same way. The court famously noted that the Legislature doesn’t “hide elephants in mouseholes” – meaning if they intended to take away a defendant’s right to their own records, they would have said so clearly.
If you or a loved one are navigating the appeals process and need legal representation, call us at 781-797-0555 for a phone consultation today.
