Dookhan defendant in Massachusetts

2020We will not repeat them here except to the extent necessary to explain the difference between the remedies offered to Dookhan defendants and Farak defendants. 6 misconduct over the course of two to three years by, among other things, making "a number of affirmative misrepresentations by signing drug certificates and testifying to the identity of substances in cases in which she had not in fact properly tested the substances in question." Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336, 348 (2014).

2018Accord Scott , supra at 357 ("[A] particular case may give rise to consideration of additional relevant factors ... such as whether the defendant was indicted on additional charges and whether the drug-related charges were a minor component of an over-all plea agreement"); Bridgeman v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist ., 476 Mass. 298 , 328 (2017) ( Bridgeman II ) (in Dookhan cases subject to Bridgeman II protocol, before district attorney may retry Dookhan defendant, he or she must "certify that ... the district attorney could produce evidence at a retrial, independent of Dookhan's sign

2017At or after that hearing, if the single justice determines that relevant Dookhan defendants have been denied their right to counsel because of the inability of CPCS, despite its best efforts, to assign counsel to represent the defendants, the single justice may order that the drug convictions at issue be vacated and dismissed without prejudice, unless the interests of justice otherwise dictate.29 See Lavallee, 442 Mass. at 246 .

2017At or after that hearing, if the single justice determines that relevant Dookhan defendants have been denied their right to counsel because of the inability of CPCS, despite its best efforts, to assign counsel to represent the defendants, the single justice may order that the drug convictions at issue be vacated and dismissed without prejudice, unless the interests of justice otherwise dictate. 29 See Lavallee, 442 Mass. at 246 .

2024Furthermore, there is no risk that justice miscarried where the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Bridgeman II suggests the "relevant Dookhan defendants" do not include those "who already moved to vacate their pleas." Bridgeman II, 476 Mass. at 309 n.11.

2023The "List Two" defendants are the "relevant Dookhan defendants" -- those who were convicted of drug offenses or pleaded guilty after their drug certificate was signed by Dookhan, see id. at 306 n.8 -- whose cases the District Attorneys would identify for dismissal following an individualized review.

2018See Resende , 475 Mass. at 17 -19 .

2017But in the exercise of that discretion a judge should appoint counsel where the failure to do so would deprive an indigent defendant "of meaningful access" or result in "fundamental unfairness." Conceicao, supra at 262 , citing Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 616 (1974), and Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 24-25 (1981). 45 Here, all of the relevant Dookhan defendants who move for a new trial are entitled under our decision in Scott to a conclusive presumption of egregious government misconduct.

2017In State v. Gookins, 135 N.J. 42, 44-45 (1994), three defendants moved to vacate their guilty pleas for driving while under the influence of alcohol after the police officer involved in their arrests and the administration of their breathalyzer tests was convicted of falsifying the result of the breathalyzer test he had performed on an undercover agent, and of stealing money from drivers whom he had stopped.

2017The notice shall consist of a mailing that is approved by the single justice as to its content, its envelope, and its mode of delivery.28 The single justice shall also have the authority to order additional forms of public notice, such as through newspapers or social media, to enhance the effectiveness of the mailing and to attempt to reach those who might not receive it. "all the evidence that it considers to be untainted that would sustain the prosecution of these cases, . . . excluding the testimony of [the convicted officer]." Id. at 51 .

2015A defendant has a “constitutional due process right to a fair trial.” Commonwealth v. Henderson, 411 Mass. 309, 310 (1991).

2015See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336, 338-342 (2014). 4 We use the term “Dookhan defendants” to refer generally to those individuals who were convicted of drug offenses and in whose cases Dookhan signed the certificate of drug analysis (drug certificate) on the line labeled “Assistant Analyst.” These cases all arose in Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth, and Suffolk Counties, except for one case that arose in Worcester County. 5 As noted by the single justice, the petitioners appear to propose notification to all Dookhan defendants, irrespective of wheth