Many lives in Massachusetts have been upended in virtually every way because of the spread of the novel coronavirus. WGBH News' Morning Edition host Joe Mathieu spoke with Northeastern University law professor and WGBH News legal analyst Daniel Medwed about how the outbreak is affecting the state's court system. The transcript has been edited for clarity.
Joe Mathieu: So are we about to take a three week pause? How has this affected the processing of cases in our courts?
Daniel Medwed: Well, like many or virtually every aspect of our lives, things have taken a dramatic turn. Now, approximately 40,000 people enter our 99 trial courts every day. Those 99 trial courts are divided into seven different departments and, actually, they're closed during the early part of this week. As of tomorrow, on Wednesday the 18th, there should be standing orders for each of those different departments. Now, the Supreme Judicial Court also issued two emergency orders last Friday related to these courthouse operations. The first one of those orders restricted access to people who have contracted COVID-19, been in close contact with someone with a confirmed case or been to a level three country, as earmarked by the CDC. Those folks will be denied entry at the courthouse gates.
Mathieu: Daniel, what's the penalty then, as somebody who fits those categories, attempts to walk in a courthouse?
Medwed: Well, it's not crystal clear. What is clear is that security has the right to deny access to people who fall within those restricted categories. But what's unclear are the consequences for somebody trying to circumvent or evade those restrictions. Not that anyone necessarily would, but it is a bit unclear, frankly.
Mathieu: What about the effect of this order on current or ongoing trials, Daniel?
Medwed: The SJC addressed that issue in that second order. The SJC clarified that in all cases where the jury is already sitting — the technical legal term "empaneled," or has been selected for a panel — those cases will proceed to verdict; the cases are going to consent continue. However, with respect to all other trials on the schedule for the next few weeks, they've been indefinitely postponed until at least April 21st.
Mathieu: So if a case is postponed, Daniel, in a criminal case at least, are there any legal rights of the defendants affected by the delay?
Medwed: Absolutely. Here are a couple. For one thing, defendants have a constitutional right to a speedy trial. And that concept is ingrained in Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, which says that you have a right to go to trial within 12 months of arraignment. That's when you're formally charged with a crime. Now, the courts have crafted carefully delineated boundaries between delays that count in computing that 12 month period and delays that toll, or stop, the computation of that period. Now, the SJC has made it crystal clear that this delay will not count for purposes of the 12 month rule, which makes sense. This is an extraordinary time [and] criminal defendants shouldn't necessarily be able to capitalize on it.
Another issue relates to pretrial detention. Lots of folks are languishing in jail, awaiting trial. Maybe they were denied bail or couldn't afford bail. These delays will certainly prolong their detention.
Mathieu: Will those defendants have any way to challenge the order? Any way to seek release or some modification of their situation?
Medwed: Well, the SJC order anticipated that to some degree. It suggested that defense attorneys could set up teleconferences or video conferences to ask the courts to reconsider bail conditions or the conditions of pretrial release. But as a practical matter, I don't know how that's going to be executed, if we have enough courthouse personnel or even the technology to facilitate those types of conferences.
Mathieu: It's uncharted territory, Daniel.
Medwed: Absolutely. It's a whole new world.
