Section 7. (a) After reviewing the motion, the prosecuting attorney's response and after holding a hearing, the court shall state findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record, or shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law that support the decision to allow or deny a motion brought under section 3.
(b) The court shall allow the requested forensic or scientific analysis if each of the following has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) that the evidence or biological material exists;
(2) that the evidence or biological material has been subject to a chain of custody that is sufficient to establish that it has not deteriorated, been substituted, tampered with, replaced, handled or altered such that the results of the requested analysis would lack any probative value;
(3) that the evidence or biological material has not been subjected to the requested analysis for any of the reasons in clauses (i) to (v), inclusive, of paragraph (5) of subsection (b) of section 3;
(4) that the requested analysis has the potential to result in evidence that is material to the moving party's identification as the perpetrator of the crime in the underlying case;
(5) that the purpose of the motion is not the obstruction of justice or delay; and
(6) that the results of the particular type of analysis being requested have been found to be admissible in courts of the commonwealth.
(c) The court on motion of any party, after notice to the opposing party and any third party from whom discovery is sought, and an opportunity to be heard, may authorize such discovery as provided for under Rule 30(c)(4) of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, from either party or any third party as is deemed appropriate, subject to appropriate protective orders or an order to the party seeking discovery to produce reciprocal discovery.
Such discovery may include items and biological materials from third parties, provided the party seeking discovery demonstrates that analysis of these items or biological material will, by a preponderance of the evidence, provide evidence material to the identification of a perpetrator of the crime.
If, in response to a motion made under subsection (c) of section 3, the court finds good cause for the moving party's inability to obtain items or information required under subsection (b) of said section 3 and subsection (b) of section 7, the court may order discovery to assist the moving party in identifying the location and condition of evidence or biological material that was obtained in relation to the underlying case, regardless of whether it was introduced at trial or would be admissible. The court, when considering such discovery requests, shall not require the establishment of a prima facie case for relief under Rule 30 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Clark, 34 N.E.3d 1 (Mass. 2015).
Commonwealth v. Clark, 34 N.E.3d 1 (Mass. 2015).
· cites it 16× “278A, § 3; that the judge erred in determining that Clark was required to establish the existence of biological *123 material on the handle of the knife; that the judge properly denied Clark’s request for discovery; and that the judge must make findings of fact and conclusions…”
Commonwealth v. Wade, 5 N.E.3d 816 (Mass. 2014).
· cites it 7× “Accordingly, the order denying the motion must be reversed and the matter remanded for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 7. Background and prior proceedings.”
Commonwealth v. Wade, 55 N.E.3d 409 (Mass. 2016).
· cites it 5× “If the requirements of the first step are satisfied, the moving party advances to the second step of the procedure, an evidentiary hearing pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 7. Wade II, supra at 501.”
Commonwealth v. Coutu, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015).
· cites it 5× “The judge allowed the defendant’s motion, pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 7, for postconviction DNA testing.”
Commonwealth v. Williams, 119 N.E.3d 1171 (Mass. 2019).
· cites it 5× “At the hearing, the movant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence each of the factors enumerated in G. L. c. 278A, § 7 ( b ), including that "the requested analysis has the potential to result in evidence that is material to [his or her] identification as the…”
Commonwealth v. Donald, 8 N.E.3d 727 (Mass. 2014).
· cites it 4× “278A, § 3 (b), with G. L. c. 278A, § 7 (b) (at hearing pursuant to G.”
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 129 N.E.3d 841 (Mass. 2019).
· cites it 3× “**833 Because Johnson is in Federal prison "as the result of" his convictions of the crimes of which he asserts factual innocence, we vacate the judge's decision and remand for consideration of the question whether Johnson is otherwise entitled to a hearing pursuant to G. L. c.…”
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 485 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016).
“Under G. L. c. 278A, § 7(c), the court on motion and after notice and hearing ‘“may authorize such discovery as provided for under [Mass.”
Earnest Ray White v. State, 814 S.E.2d 447 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
“See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 7 (b) (2). Reference to this limited sample of statutory approaches simply belies any notion that jurisdictions in the United States have uniformly placed the burden on petitioners to demonstrate, at the outset, that the biological material…”
Commonwealth v. Putnam, 120 N.E.3d 295 (Mass. 2019).
· cites it 2× “We note that at the hearing stage, he still must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence each of the factors enumerated in G. L. c. 278A, § 7( b ), including that "the requested analysis has the potential to result in evidence that is material to the moving party's…”
Commonwealth v. Camuti (Mass. 2024).
· cites it 6× “After a nonevidentiary hearing, a Superior Court judge denied the motion, finding that the defendant had failed to meet his burden under G. L. c. 278A, § 7 (b), to establish that a reasonably effective defense attorney would have sought to test the victim's shirt for DNA.”
Commonwealth v. Cadet (Mass. 2026).
· cites it 5× “Concluding that the defendant did meet this initial requirement with respect to the requested DNA testing of the knife handles and bleach bottle, we reverse in part the denial of the defendant's motion and remand the matter for a hearing under G. L. c. 278A, § 7. 1. Background.…”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 7(b) — 1 case
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 7(b)(3) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Coutu, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015).
“The judge allowed the defendant’s motion, pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 7, for postconviction DNA testing.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 7(b)(4) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Coutu, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015).
“The judge allowed the defendant’s motion, pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 7, for postconviction DNA testing.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 7(b)(5)(i) — 1 case
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 7(c) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 485 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016).
“Under G. L. c. 278A, § 7(c), the court on motion and after notice and hearing ‘“may authorize such discovery as provided for under [Mass.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 7(h)(4) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Coutu, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015).
“The judge allowed the defendant’s motion, pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 7, for postconviction DNA testing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.