SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(US)(ca1) 65

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Cotto – Appellant
Versus
Campbell – Respondent



No. 23-2069

JENNIFER COTTO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JAMIE KIMBALL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; DAVID CUMMINGS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; TODD MOTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; and TRAVIS MORAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, Appellees,

STACY FOSTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JONATHAN RILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; and NICOLE WESTCOTT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. ANDREA J. CAMPBELL, Attorney General; TIMOTHY SHUGRUE, Berkshire County District Attorney; THOMAS M. QUINN, III, Bristol County District Attorney; ROBERT J. GALIBOIS, II, Cape and Islands District Attorney; PAUL TUCKER, Essex County District Attorney; ANTHONY GULLUNI, Hampden County District Attorney; MARIAN RYAN, Middlesex County District Attorney; MICHAEL W. MORRISSEY, Norfolk County District Attorney; DAVID E. SULLIVAN, Northwestern District Attorney; TIMOTHY J. CRUZ, Plymouth County District Attorney; KEVIN R. HAYDEN, Suffolk County District Attorney; JOSEPH D. EARLY, JR, Worcester County District Attorney; THOMAS G. AMBROSINO, Administrator of the Trial Court; and JOHN MAWN, JR., Massachusetts State Police Interim Superintendent,

Defendants, Appellants,

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; BROCKTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, on behalf of itself and all other police departments similarly situated; FALL RIVER POLICE DEPARTMENT, on behalf of itself and all other police departments similarly situated; BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, on behalf of itself and all other police departments similarly situated; SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, on behalf of itself and all other police departments similarly situated; CHARLIE BAKER, Governor; DEBORAH B. GOLDBERG, Treasurer; EDWARD DOLAN, Commissioner of Probation; and DANIEL BENNETT, Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security,

Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Indira Talwani, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Rikelman, Lynch, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.

Christine Fimognari, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Andrea Joy Campbell, Attorney General of Massachusetts, and Anne Sterman and Katherine B. Dirks, Assistant Attorneys General, were on brief, for appellants.

Daniel N. Marx, with whom William W. Fick, Luke Ryan, Fick & Marx LLP, and Strehorn, Ryan & Hoose were on brief, for appellees.

January 21, 2025 RIKELMAN, Circuit Judge. For almost a decade, two state chemists in Massachusetts tampered with drug evidence and falsified test results, undermining the reliability of forensic evidence in tens of thousands of drug cases. After their egregious misconduct was discovered, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) vacated and dismissed with prejudice over 30,000 criminal cases tainted by their actions. Eventually, the SJC also determined that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, affected individuals were entitled to the repayment of most funds collected as a consequence of their now-vacated convictions, but not to the automatic return of any forfeited property seized in connection with those convictions. See Commonwealth v. Martinez, 109 N.E.3d 459, 471-76 (Mass. 2018). Instead, because of the different legal standards and procedures necessary for a conviction as opposed to a forfeiture order, the SJC held that individuals seeking return of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top