More than 100 criminal cases could be dismissed this week as defendants go without lawyers

By Kevin Rothstein

Click here for updates on this story

    BOSTON, Massachusetts (WCVB) — With no resolution in sight, the Massachusetts court crisis caused by bar advocates’ work stoppage is set to escalate this week as criminal defendants continue to go without legal representation.

In a new filing, the Committee for Public Counsel said there were 101 juvenile defendants, including one in the custody of the Department of Youth Services, who did not have legal representation as of July 18, raising the possibility that those cases could be dismissed. The juvenile cases are in Essex, Franklin, Hampden, Middlesex, Norfolk and Suffolk counties.

That comes on top of what the courts said in a filing Friday was a coming legal and logistical crisis. The filing, made by the state attorney general’s office representing several courts, warns that there is an enormous number of hearings that are needed soon for defendants still without attorneys to decide whether their criminal charges should be dismissed. The number of hearings is so great that the courts are asking for additional judges.

Boston Municipal Court expects about 130 cases to be heard for dismissal Tuesday and another 225 cases to be heard on Aug. 5. Other district courts, including in Middlesex County, estimate there are 447 defendants who will need hearings soon so a judge can decide whether to dismiss their charges.

The flurry of legal filings is the latest development in a constitutional crisis caused by the work stoppage of bar advocates, private attorneys who are appointed to represent indigent defendants. The advocates argue they are not being paid enough by the state.

The stoppage led the state’s highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, earlier this month to enact an emergency measure known as the Lavallee Protocol to deal with defendants who did not have representation.

As part of the protocol, any defendant who has been in custody without counsel for seven days must be released. It also requires cases against defendants who have been without representation for 45 days to be dismissed, at least temporarily.

Since the protocol was put into place in Suffolk and Middlesex counties, 23 criminal defendants have been released from custody.

The 45-day deadline approaching for hundreds of defendants is what prompted the trial courts to request additional judges.

Under the procedures currently in place, one judge in each county has been designated to hear these cases. On Monday morning, the high court allowed that process to be amended, giving the counties leeway to add more judges and courtrooms to handle the growing number of cases.

In a statement on the eve of the hearings, a spokesman for the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office said:

“Since the beginning of this work stoppage our prosecutors have done their utmost to oppose the release of serious offenders. The 45-day mark represents a significant escalation in the threat to public safety, with cases involving serious assaults, domestic violence and other high-level offenses up for potential dismissal. The danger is only going to expand and compound as the stoppage drags on and additional defendants are released.”

A raise for bar advocates was not included in the state budget recently passed by lawmakers. According to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, what the lawyers are asking for amounts to a nearly 54% increase. Leaders on Beacon Hill said threats to federal funding have already required cuts in spending.

Gov. Maura Healey has expressed concern about the ongoing work stoppage, but has stopped short of saying whether her office would get involved to end it.

“It’s a matter of public safety, it’s also a matter of due process, and people are entitled to representation,” Healey said last week. “I continue to call for a swift resolution here so we can get beyond this so that people can be protected in court with counsel, and also that public safety is protected.”

Please note: This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.