CourtSupreme Judicial Court
DocketSJC 13838
ReleasedSeptember 9, 2026
Full opinionRead the full text of the decision
Question
Did the single justice abuse his discretion by denying, without reaching the merits, a G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition seeking relief related to missing audio recordings from a sealed criminal case?
Rule
General Laws c. 211, § 3 grants the Supreme Judicial Court superintendence power over inferior courts, but “the single justice is not required to become involved if the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy or if the single justice determines, in his or her discretion, that the subject of the petition is not sufficiently important and extraordinary as to require general superintendence intervention.” Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 24-25 (2019).
The full court reviews only whether the single justice “abused his or her discretion” in declining to reach the merits. Pike v. Superintendent, N. Cent. Correctional Inst., 496 Mass. 1040, 1041 (2025). A petitioner must demonstrate “the type of exceptional matter that requires the court’s extraordinary intervention.” Fontanez, 482 Mass. at 25.
Holding
No abuse of discretion. The petitioner presented no novel legal issue and offered no evidence of a systemic problem requiring appellate intervention. His difficulty accessing portions of a sealed record, while frustrating, does not rise to the level of an “exceptional matter” warranting extraordinary relief. The single justice acted within his discretion in finding the circumstances insufficient to justify bypassing the ordinary process.
The petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy. The BMC had already scheduled a hearing where he could present his arguments about the missing recordings. If dissatisfied with the outcome, he retains the right to pursue ordinary appellate review.
Result
Judgment affirmed. To the extent the petition requested an order directing the BMC to schedule a hearing, that request is moot because the hearing has been scheduled.
Players
- Court: Supreme Judicial Court, on appeal from denial of a G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition by a single justice of the county court
- Opinion by: Per curiam
- Below: Boston Municipal Court (2010-2012 criminal case; 2025 motions); single justice of the county court (denied § 3 petition)
- Petitioner: Impounded (pro se), subject of a 2010 assault case continued without a finding and later sealed
- Respondent: Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department
- Counsel for petitioner: Pro se
- Counsel for respondent: Daniel J. Ruben, Assistant Attorney General
The Supreme Judicial Court has affirmed a single justice’s refusal to intervene in a sealed-record dispute, holding that a petitioner seeking access to missing audio recordings from a 15-year-old criminal case must first exhaust his remedies in the trial court.
The Facts
In 2010, the petitioner faced an assault charge in Boston Municipal Court. He admitted to sufficient facts, the case was continued without a finding for one year with probationary conditions, and it was dismissed in 2012 after he completed probation successfully. Thirteen years later, in 2025, he successfully petitioned to seal the case.
After sealing, the petitioner filed a motion to correct a clerical error on the electronic docket and moved for access to five audio recordings of hearings in his case. A BMC judge corrected the docket error and ordered the court to provide the recordings “in as much as such recordings still exist.” Three of the five recordings were located and given to the petitioner, though only after he filed a motion to compel compliance due to technical difficulties. The remaining two recordings could not be found.
The petitioner then filed a motion for an emergency status conference, seeking a hearing and other relief related to the missing recordings. Shortly after he filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition with the SJC, the BMC scheduled a hearing. That hearing has been continued several times at the petitioner’s request.
The Superintendence Petition
The petitioner’s G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition sought relief related to his requests for the recordings. Section 3 gives the SJC superintendence power over inferior courts, a tool reserved for exceptional circumstances. A single justice denied the petition without addressing the merits, finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated the kind of extraordinary matter requiring the court’s intervention.
The petitioner moved for reconsideration. That motion was also denied. He now appeals to the full court.
What the Court Held
The SJC affirmed. When a single justice exercises discretion not to reach the merits of a G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition, the full court reviews only for abuse of discretion. The standard is narrow. A single justice need not intervene if the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy or if the matter is not sufficiently important and extraordinary to warrant superintendence.
The court found no abuse of discretion here. The petitioner presented no novel legal issue. He offered no evidence of a systemic problem in the BMC affecting others. His difficulty accessing portions of his sealed record, while understandably frustrating, does not rise to the level of an exceptional matter requiring the SJC to bypass the normal court process.
The Reasoning
The court emphasized that the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy: the BMC hearing that was scheduled after he filed his petition. At that hearing, he can present his arguments about the missing recordings. If the result is unsatisfactory, he retains the right to pursue ordinary appellate review.
Superintendence power is extraordinary relief. It exists for novel questions of law, systemic failures, or circumstances where the normal judicial process cannot provide an adequate remedy. This case presented none of those. The BMC was already addressing the petitioner’s concerns through ordinary proceedings. The single justice acted within his discretion in declining to intervene.
The court noted that to the extent the petition requested an order directing the BMC to schedule a hearing, that request is now moot. The hearing has been scheduled.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the boundaries of G. L. c. 211, § 3. Superintendence is not an alternative to ordinary appellate review. It is not available simply because a litigant is dissatisfied with the pace or direction of trial court proceedings. The SJC will not intervene unless a petitioner demonstrates something truly exceptional: a novel legal question, a systemic problem, or the absence of any other adequate remedy.
For litigants navigating sealed records or other post-conviction matters, the message is clear: work through the trial court first. Even when the process is slow or frustrating, ordinary remedies must be exhausted before seeking extraordinary relief. The fact that the petitioner here is proceeding pro se did not change the analysis. The legal standard remains the same.
The case also highlights the practical reality of aging court records. Audio recordings from 2010 may not exist, may be stored in obsolete formats, or may have been lost in system migrations. While courts have obligations to preserve records, those obligations have limits, especially for cases that are decades old and were resolved favorably to the defendant. The petitioner’s remedy for any such failures lies in the trial court, not in an emergency petition to the SJC.
Read the full opinion: In the Matter of an Impounded Case (SJC-13838, September 9, 2026).