News, Pleadings
David Nathanson
Public Trial Amicus Brief

On March 6, 2017, Attorney Wood and a team of attorneys from Ropes & Gray filed a brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Weaver v. Massachusetts, No. 16-240. They argue that the Court should not shy away from vindicating the treasured right to a public trial. The government's argument that vindicating the right to a public trial would "open up the floodgates" is both factually incorrect and diverts attention from the real issue: whether our Constitution entitles everyone to a public trial. Read the brief here.

Zoom Hearings

SJC Agrees Defendants May Insist on In-Person Hearings

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court held that defendants may, in many circumstances, insist on in-person hearings rather than be forced to conduct a hearing via Zoom. In so ruling the SJC agreed with arguments made jointly by Attorney Wood for MACDL, along with the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice and the Boston Bar Association. Requiring Zoom hearings has a disparate impact on poor people and people of color: they tend to do worse in such hearings and they have worse access to broadband internet necessary for such hearings. For a more detailed description, you can read the Boston Bar Association’s press release here.

ABA Interview: Opposition to Forced Zoom Hearings

Attorney Wood was recently interviewed by the American Bar Association's Judicial Division Record about MACDL's support for a defendant who opposed being forced to waive his constitutional right to an in-person suppression hearing. Read the article here. The case, Commonwealth v. Vasquez Diaz, is currently pending in the SJC. Read the brief here.

"Zoom" Hearings Violate Constitutional Rights

On November 20, 2020, Attorney Wood on behalf of MACDL - along with Katherine Naples-Mitchell of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice and Meredith Shih of the Boston Bar Association - filed a joint amicus brief arguing that forcing defendants to have suppression hearings heard over “Zoom” will disparately harm people of color. Zoom hearings disproportionately limit access to these public hearings that determine whether police have engaged in unconstitutional conduct in cases that are disproportionately brought against people of color.