Ten people, including troopers, sergeants, command staff and senior leaders at the Massachusetts State Police academy, were granted judicial immunity and testified before the special statewide grand jury that investigated the 2024 death of recruit Enrique Delgado-Garcia, according to a memo the special prosecutor filed Monday. NBC10 Boston reported the memo on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, when one of the four charged academy staffers appeared in Worcester Superior Court and her lawyer pressed for evidence on why academy leaders were not charged.
Lt. Jennifer Penton and troopers Edwin Rodriguez, David Montanez and Casey Lamonte, who were part of the academy’s Defensive Tactics Unit, are charged with involuntary manslaughter and with causing serious bodily injury to a person participating in a training program involving physical exercise, NBC10 reported. Penton also faces a perjury charge. All four have pleaded not guilty and are presumed innocent. Delgado-Garcia died after he was knocked unconscious in a boxing exercise at the academy and had concussion-like symptoms.
The facts below about Tuesday’s hearing come from NBC10’s report. Here is what the immunity grants mean under Massachusetts law, which we read at malegislature.gov.
What happened in court
- Discovery is still under way. Defense lawyers said they have received 14,000 pages of grand jury transcripts and 350 grand jury exhibits and are asking prosecutors for more. “It’s a lengthy and attenuated process,” said Brad Bailey, Penton’s lawyer.
- The immunity memo. Special prosecutor David Meier wrote that 10 individuals, including troopers, sergeants, command staff and senior leadership at the academy, were granted judicial immunity and testified before the grand jury last year.
- The defense requests. Among dozens of requests, the defense wants documentation of any witnesses who received immunity, and evidence about the decision to charge Penton but not command staff.
- Status. Only Penton was in court. All four remain suspended with pay. The next hearing is January 7, 2027.
How judicial immunity works in Massachusetts
A witness can refuse to answer questions that might incriminate them. Immunity is the trade the law offers to get the testimony anyway. Massachusetts sets out the process in G.L. c. 233, §§ 20C through 20I.
- Who grants it. Under § 20E, a justice of the Superior Court, Appeals Court or Supreme Judicial Court “shall, at the request of the attorney general or a district attorney, and after a hearing, issue an order granting immunity,” if the judge finds the witness refused, or is likely to refuse, to answer on self-incrimination grounds. The hearing is not open to the public, and the witness is entitled to a lawyer.
- Which crimes. Section 20D lists the crimes, a long list that ends with “or any felony.” Manslaughter is a felony, so an investigation into a death qualifies.
- The witness must then testify. Under § 20C, once immunity is granted the witness “shall not be excused from testifying” on the ground that the answers may be incriminating.
What immunity protects, and what it does not
Section 20G says an immunized witness “shall not be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction matter, or thing concerning which he is so compelled” to testify. The compelled testimony also cannot be used against the witness in any criminal or civil case in a Massachusetts court.
That is broader than the federal standard. In Attorney General v. Colleton, 387 Mass. 790 (1982), which we read on CourtListener, the Supreme Judicial Court held that article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights requires “transactional immunity,” protection from prosecution for the matters the witness testified about, and not only a ban on using the testimony. Federal law requires only use and derivative use immunity.
There are two exceptions in § 20G: prosecution “for perjury or contempt committed while giving testimony.” Immunity does not license lying to the grand jury.
Why it matters for the defense
Penton’s lawyers want to know who received immunity and why command staff were not charged. NBC10 did not report what the defense intends to argue with that information, and no court has ruled on the requests. In general, the identity of immunized witnesses and what they said can matter at trial: a defendant may argue that others bore responsibility, and may cross-examine an immunized witness about the deal. Whether any of that is admissible here is for the judge to decide.
For the 10 who were immunized, the statute means that, for the matters they were compelled to testify about, they cannot be prosecuted, unless they lied under oath.
The academy itself reopened October 26 with changes the department made after an independent review. What changed at the academy.
Frequently asked questions
Who is charged in Enrique Delgado-Garcia’s death?
Lt. Jennifer Penton and troopers Edwin Rodriguez, David Montanez and Casey Lamonte, all members of the academy’s Defensive Tactics Unit, are charged with involuntary manslaughter and causing serious bodily injury to a person in a physical training program. Penton also faces a perjury charge. All have pleaded not guilty.
Who received immunity?
The special prosecutor’s memo, as reported by NBC10, says 10 individuals, including troopers, sergeants, command staff and senior academy leadership, were granted judicial immunity and testified before the grand jury. NBC10 did not report their names.
Can someone with immunity in Massachusetts be prosecuted later?
Not for the matters they were compelled to testify about, under G.L. c. 233, § 20G and the SJC’s ruling in Attorney General v. Colleton. They can be prosecuted for perjury or contempt committed while testifying.
When is the next court date?
January 7, 2027, according to NBC10.
Sources: NBC10 Boston, November 3, 2026 (hearing, special prosecutor’s memo, defense statements). G.L. c. 233, §§ 20C, 20D, 20E and 20G, read at malegislature.gov. Attorney General v. Colleton, 387 Mass. 790 (1982), verified and read on CourtListener. We did not review the memo itself. General information, not legal advice.