Supreme Judicial Court selects Jonathan S. Williams as
Massachusetts Trial Court Administrator
The justices of the Supreme Judicial Court have announced that
they have selected Jonathan S. Williams as the next Court
Administrator of the Trial Court. Williams succeeds Harry
Spence, who will retire on April 17, after
serving a five-year term as the first Court
Administrator.
"The Justices are pleased to welcome Jon Williams,
who will bring to his new position
an extensive record of accomplishments in
public sector management and a depth of experience
in court administration," said Supreme Judicial Court
Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants. "We are confident that Jon will
be able to continue and build upon the progress made in the last
five years under his predecessor Harry Spence. Harry has brought
the Trial Court through a time of great growth and change, and we
thank him for his exceptional service."
Jon Williams most recently has served as Senior
Deputy Director in the North Carolina Administrative Office of the
Courts, where he supervised operations for the Judicial
Branch, including technology, finance and general
services. He was appointed by North Carolina Chief Justice
Mark Martin to serve as the Chief Reporter to the Commission on the
Administration of Law and Justice, a 65 member
multidisciplinary group tasked to make broad recommendations for
court reform in North Carolina. As Chief Reporter, Williams helped
secure funding and structured the overall work of the Commission
from its inception to its delivery of the final report in March
2017.
Before working for the court system, Williams was Assistant
Secretary for the North Carolina Department of Commerce and the
Chairman of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission. Prior to
that, he spent ten years working for the North Carolina Department
of Crime Control and Public Safety, after spending eight
years as an attorney in private practice.
The Massachusetts Trial Court Administrator is the
administrative head of the Trial Court, charged with providing
effective, timely and innovative support to judges, clerks,
probation officers and staff. Working together with the Chief
Justice of the Trial Court, the Court Administrator is responsible
for shaping administrative functions that support the Trial Court's
delivery of justice to the people of Massachusetts. Duties include
budget preparation and oversight, labor relations, information
technology, capital projects, security and personnel
policy.
"The Trial Court is in the midst of an exciting period of
renewal," said Williams, "I look forward to joining Chief
Justice Paula Carey in these ambitious efforts and supporting a
culture of continuous improvement in all we do."
"With the hard work and dedication of those who work in the
Trial Court, we have made great strides in streamlining our
operations and modernizing our systems," said Trial Court Chief
Justice Paula M. Carey. "I am confident that Jon Williams and I
will work together to continue to expand capabilities and
efficiencies through technology, improving operations and enhancing
the delivery of justice."
The position of Court Administrator for the Massachusetts Trial
Court was
created by court management legislation enacted
in 2011. The Massachusetts Trial Court includes seven court
departments with 379 judges and about 6,300 employees who deliver
justice in 101 courthouses across the state.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of vacancies on the Board of Bar Overseers
The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court invite applications
for appointment to the Board of Bar Overseers. Several vacancies
will occur in July 2017, due to the expiration of terms of
incumbent members. Appointments are made for a term of four years.
One page resumes or biographies, with cover letters, should be
submitted by April 19 to:
Mona R. Hochberg
Supreme Judicial Court
John Adams Courthouse
One Pemberton Square
Boston, MA 02108.
Phone: 617-557-1156
Submissions may be made by mail or email.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Judicial Court announces new committee to study grand jury
proceedings
The justices of the Supreme Judicial Court have announced the
creation of a Committee to Study Grand Jury Proceedings. The
committee will report on the practices employed by the district
attorneys and the Attorney General with respect to grand jury
presentments, the reasons supporting the different practices, the
substance of the instructions that grand juries receive, and any
recommended best practices.
In a recent opinion, Commonwealth v . Bryan M. Grassie,
476 Mass. 202 (2017), the Supreme Judicial Court stated that it
would "convene a committee to assist us in gaining a better
understanding of current practices employed by the various district
attorneys and the Attorney General before considering an extension
of the rule adopted in Commonwealth v. Walczak, 463 Mass.
808 (2012) to similar types of grand jury proceedings involving
adults." In Walczak, the Court had held that "where the
Commonwealth seeks to indict a juvenile for murder and where there
is substantial evidence of mitigating circumstances or defenses
(other than lack of criminal responsibility) presented to the grand
jury, the prosecutor shall instruct the grand jury on the elements
of murder and on the significance of the mitigating circumstances
and defenses."
Chaired by Superior Court Judge Robert L. Ullmann, the committee
includes representatives of the judiciary, the Attorney General,
the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, the Committee for
Public Counsel Services, the Massachusetts Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers and others with experience in grand jury
proceedings.
The members of the committee are:
Honorable Robert L. Ullmann, Superior Court, Chair
Honorable Peter W. Agnes, Jr., Appeals Court
Janice Bassil, Esq., Bassil Klovee & Budreau, Boston
Assistant District Attorney Paul J. Caccaviello, Berkshire County
District Attorney's Office
Honorable Judd J. Carhart, Appeals Court
Assistant Attorney General David E. Clayton, Office of the
Attorney General
Assistant District Attorney Kevin J. Curtin, Middlesex County
District Attorney's Office
Randy Gioia, Esq., Committee for Public Counsel Services
Honorable Bertha Josephson, Superior Court (retired)
Clinical Professor Diane S. Juliar, Suffolk Law School
Assistant District Attorney Mary Lee, Plymouth County District
Attorney's Office
Kevin M. Mitchell, Esq., Law Office of Kevin M. Mitchell,
Chelsea
Assistant District Attorney Donna Jalbert Patalano, Suffolk County
District Attorney's Office
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated District Court jury instructions
The following updates to jury instructions have been made by the
District Court. The full Criminal Model Jury Instructions can be
viewed here.
Assault and Battery by means of a Dangerous Weapon (Instruction
6.300)
- Removed references to requirement that the defendant
"intentionally" use the item as a dangerous weapon.
Commonwealth v. Tevlin, 433 Mass. 305, 313 (2001); Commonwealth v.
Bior, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 150, 158 (2015).
- Changed examples from lighted cigarette and pencil aimed at eye
(assault, not ABDW) to brick thrust against someone's head and
pillow used to suffocate someone.
First Complaint (Instruction 3.660)
- Changed "we" to "the law" in second sentence of the substantive
instruction
- Updated notes to note rule is a neutral rule of evidence,
available to a defendant if relevant. Commonwealth v.
Mayotte, 475 Mass. 254, 260-61 (2016)
- Added to note 4 re: CW limited to one first complaint witness
or substitute to note exception for testimony about different
periods of time and escalating abuse
- Added note 8 re: subsequent complaint testimony not being
excluded if independently admissible testimony and serves a purpose
other than to repeat the fact of a complaint
Leaving Scene Property Damage (Instruction 5.180)
- Removed public way as an element, Commonwealth v. Leblanc, 475
Mass. 820 (2016) - (the complaint language has been updated as
well)
- Added language from operation of a motor vehicle so no need to
flip back to that instruction
- Replaced "injury" with "damage"
Trespass (Instruction 8.220)
- No substantive change - only change to notes to note potential
necessity defense, Commonwealth v. Magadini, 474 Mass. 593
(2016)