Boston Bar Association Welcomes Supreme Judicial Court Decision Allowing Defendants Full Access to Their Otherwise-sealed Records

Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held unanimously that a criminal defendant who is found guilty on some charges but not guilty on others  must be allowed access to the trial record for purposes of appealing any conviction, even if it is otherwise sealed from public access to prevent collateral consequences relating to the acquittals.  

The BBA joined the Committee for Public Counsel Services and the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in filing an amicus brief urging this outcome. 

“This decision reaffirms a bedrock principle: the right to appeal means little if a defendant cannot review the very record they are challenging,” said Suma Nair, President of the Boston Bar Association. “Ensuring full access in mixed-verdict cases isn’t just a procedural safeguard; it’s essential to fairness and to the integrity of our justice system.” 

In Commonwealth v. Gravito, the defendant sought to appeal his lone conviction among five counts. Yet the appellate judge restricted his attorney’s access to the sealed files, allowing no copies to be made. The defendant argued that these limitations impaired his ability to present an appeal, and the joint amicus brief agreed, saying the statute that provides for sealing must be interpreted to protect the defendant’s rights in such “mixed verdict” cases, and that the Legislature never intended to keep a criminal record out of view of the acquitted defendant and defense counsel. 

The SJC resoundingly concurred. Writing for the court, Justice Dalila Wendlandt stated, “Nothing in the legislative history suggests the Legislature intended to limit the defendant’s own access to his sealed criminal records, let alone to preclude appellate counsel from accessing records necessary to provide effective assistance on appeal.” With today’s ruling, the defendant’s appeal can now move forward with full access to the record. 

This decision follows a 2023 SJC decision on the same statute, which ruled that state law mandates automatic sealing of criminal records for charges if a defendant is found not guilty, a grand jury declines to indict, or a judge finds no probable cause. In that case, the BBA filed an amicus letter urging that result. Today, the SJC rejected the notion that sealing laws should disadvantage defendants, the very people the laws were designed to protect. 

 “The SJC agreed with our amicus brief that sealing laws were intended to help defendants move forward after a favorable disposition, not prevent them from accessing their own records,” said Christina Miller of Suffolk University Law School and immediate past co-chair of the BBA’s Amicus Committee. “Blocking access not only would undermine the right to appeal a conviction but could have also caused lasting harm in many other situations.” 

“Amicus Curiae” means, literally, “friend of the court.” Since 1975, the BBA has filed amicus briefs on matters related to the practice of law or the administration of justice. The 2025-2026 BBA Amicus Committee is co-chaired by Ian Roffman of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP and Emily Schulman of Harvard Law School.