MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT COMMISSION TO STUDY RACIAL AND ETHNIC BIAS IN THE COURTS, FINAL REPORT, SEPT. 1994

The Commission was created on August 2, 1990 by the Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The impetus for the Commission's creation was an incident that occurred in Suffolk Superior Court in August 1988. During a criminal session of Suffolk Superior Court, two court officers mistook Assistant Attorney General Thomas H. Brewer, an African American, for a defendant and attempted to bar him, in an inappropriate manner, from gaining access to a part of the courtroom that he was entitled to enter. The resulting publicity highlighted the issue of racial bias in Massachusetts courts. In the Spring of 1990, the Chief Justice, responding to growing public concern, met with bar association leaders to discuss the need for a study. The Commission was formed following the meeting.

The Commission held seven public hearings and focus group meetings across the state to solicit a wide range of public input. The Commission also surveyed the bench and bar members, conducted an extensive research project on the racial composition of jury pools and juries, and examined the effect of bias on sentencing. An attorneys' survey was sent to 4,542 attorneys. A judges' survey was sent to 328 judges. The response rates were 56% and 80% respectively.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Supreme Judicial Court should undertake, on its own or through the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, a comprehensive study of sentencing patterns to determine whether there is any disparity related to racial/ethnic bias. A sentencing study should include a detailed analysis of the sentencing patterns of young male offenders. This analysis should be conducted on serious crimes committed by white, black/African American, Hispanic and Asian American males by comparing the rates of incarceration and sentence length across these groups.

The Trial Court should produce and distribute regular reports of sentencing patterns by race and ethnicity.

The Office of the Commissioner of Probation, the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the District Attorneys' offices, the Trial Court and local police departments should develop coordinated information systems which will allow comparison of the data each has collected. The District Attorney's office for each county should be the primary agency responsible for collecting the data on case processing.