Amicus Curiae Brief — Costarelli v. Massachusetts

MICHAEL RODAK. JR, CL

Table of Contents.

Interest of amicus l

Argument

A. Factual statement of the operation of the trial

de novo system in Massachusetts 2

B. The right to trial by jury in the first instance is

not inconsistent with the trial de novo system as it

operates in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 6

Conclusion 12

Appendix A 13

Appendix B 15

Table of Authorities Cited.

CASES.

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) Tn

Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888) 7, 11

Commonwealth v. Crapo, 212 Mass. 209 (1912) 5

Commonwealth v. Dominico, Mass. App. Ct. Adv. Sh.

(1974) 49 10n

Corey v. Commonwealth, Mass. Adv. Sh. (1973) 1237 ll

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) A

Myers v. Commonwealth, Mass. Adv. Sh. (1973) 1045 ll

STATUTES.

United States Constitution

Sixth Amendment 6, 7,8

Fourteenth Amendment

ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED.

18 U.S.C.A. § 3500

G.L. c. 90

§ 28

G.L. c. 276, § 35

G.L. c. 278

§ 2

§ 18

§ 18A

§ 25

§ 28B

iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED.

MISCELLANEOUS.

Rules of the District Court, Rule 46 4n

Kent B. Smith, Criminal Practice and Procedure, Mas-

sachusetts Practice Series, vol. 30 5,6

"M4

r

*h.

In the

Supreme Court of the United States.

Ocroser TERM, 1974.

No. 73-6739.

STEVEN COSTARELLI,

APPELLANT,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,

APPELLEE.

ON APPEAL FROM THE MUNICIPAL COURT

OF THE CITY OF BOSTON.

Brief of Amicus Curiae

Massachusetts Defenders Committee.

Interest of Amicus.

The Massachusetts Defenders Committee is the state-wide

public defender agency for the Commonwealth of Massachu-

setts. As such, it has the responsibility of providing representa-

tion for indigents charged with crime in the Commonwealth.

2

The Massachusetts Defenders Committee appears in the Dis-

trict Courts in thirteen of the fourteen counties of the Com-

monwealth. During the year 1974, the Massachusetts Defenders

Committee represented 30 per cent of the indigent defendants

charged with crimes over which the District Courts had juris-

diction.

Costarelli v. Commonwealth deals with the rights of defend-

ants charged with crime in the District Courts. The Massachu-

setts Defenders Committee, because of its extensive representa-

tion of such defendants, has a proper and legitimate concern

with the resolution of the issues raised in Costarelli. Letters of

the consent of both parties to the submission of this brief have

been filed with the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of

the United States.

Argument.

This brief is submitted to provide the Court with the factual

background of the trial de novo system as it operates in the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its purpose is to enable the

Court to assess the practical impact its decision would have,

not only on the parties to the suit before the Court, but on the

administration of justice in the Commonwealth of Massachu-

setts.

A. FacruaL STATEMENT OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIAL DE

Novo SysTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS.

The judicial system of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

is composed of a two-tier trial court structure. The lower

3

tribunal is the District Court,' which sits part or fulltime in

seventy-two locations throughout the state (G.L. c. 218, § 1).

The higher tribunal is the Superior Court, which operates in

each of the Commonwealth’s fourteen counties.

A criminal case may be initiated in this two-tier system in

either of two ways. The first manner of proceeding is by

means of indictment by grand jury (G.L. c. 263, § 4). Follow-

ing indictment, a case is heard with or without a jury in the

Superior Court (G.L. c. 278, § 2). As a matter of practice,

indictment by grand jury is employed only where a major

felony, such as murder, is involved, cases comprising less than

one per cent of charges brought in the Commonwealth?

The second means of proceeding in a criminal case is by

filing a complaint in the lower tribunal, the District Court.

G.L. c. 218, § 26, provides that the District Courts shall have

original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Superior Court, of all

misdemeanors (excepting libels), all felonies punishable by

imprisonment in the state’s prison for a term not excecding five

years, and certain specifically enumerated crimes.’ Approxi-

mately 99 per cent of criminal cases are initiated in the Dis-

trict Court.

In most cases where the charge carries a maximum sentence

in excess of five years, the District Court is without jurisdiction

' The District Courts include the Municipal Court of the City of Boston.

G.L. c. 218, § 1.

* Estimates of the distribution of cases initiated by grand jury indictment

as opposed to complaint in the District Court are derived from statistics

compiled by the Massachusetts Defenders Committee concerning defendants

represented by the Committee.

* The specifically enumerated charges, all of which would otherwise be

exempted from the original jurisdiction of the District Court because the

maximum penalty exceeds five years, include breaking and entering in the

nighttime (G.L. c. 266, § 16), breaking and entering in the daytime (G.L.

c. 266, § 17), and entering a dwellinghouse (G.L. c. 266, § 18).

4

to try the merits (G.L. c. 218, § 26). In such instances, a

hearing is held in the District Court to determine whether

probable cause exists to bind the accused over to the Superior

Court for trial (G.L. c. 218, § 30). In cases begun in the

District Court over which the District Court has concurrent

jurisdiction with the Superior Court, disposition may be made

in any of four ways.

First, the accused may plead guilty to the charges and be

sentenced by the District Court. Second, an accused may

admit to sufficient facts to support a finding of guilty and

submit to a finding of guilty and the imposition of sentence by

the District Court. By admitting to sufficient facts, an accused

essentially pleads nolo contendere before the District Court. A

third means of disposition is for the District Court to decline to

exercise its jurisdiction and hold a hearing to determine wheth-

er probable cause exists to hold the accused for trial in the

Superior Court (G.L. c. 218, § 30). In such a case, the

individual will be indicted by grand jury pursuant to G.L.

c. 263, § 4, and the case will be treated as if begun in the

Superior Court in the first instance.

The fourth option for disposition is a trial on the merits

before the District Court sitting without a jury. The full

panoply of due process rights afforded in trials by the Superior

Court sitting without a jury obtain at the District Court trial

except that no stenographic recording is required.“ Counsel is

appointed to defend the accused (G.L. c. 263, § 5); compul-

sory process of witnesses issues (G.L. c. 218, § 37; G.L. ¢. 263,

§ 5); the accused is permitted to confront his accusers (G.L.

‘ While no stenographic transcription of District Court proceedings is

required by law, as a matter of practice, multi-track tape recordings are

employed in some sessions of the District Court. Rule 46 of the Rules of the

District Court. An accused who is able to pay for stenographic recording of

the District Court proceedings may have a stenographer present (G.L.

c. 218, § 27A).

5

As a matter of practice, final disposition of a case in the

District Court occurs not longer than two weeks after the

filing of the complaint. G.L. c. 276, § 35, provides that no

continuance for a period exceeding ten days may be granted

without the consent of the accused.

A defendant who has pleaded guilty before the District

Court has no right to appeal the merits of his case. Common-

wealth v. Crapo, 212 Mass. 209 (1912); Kent B. Smith, Crimi-

nal Practice and Procedure, Massachusetts Practice Series, vol.

30, § 754. Review of the sentence imposed may be obtained,

however, by filing a claim of appeal before the Superior Court

sitting as the Appellate Division (G.L. c. 278, § 28B). Conse-

quently, few, if any, defendants plead guilty before the Dis-

trict Court.

An accused who admits to facts sufficient to support a

finding of guilty essentially pleads guilty before the District

Court, but does not waive his right to trial de novo before the

Superior Court. Similarly, a defendant who has been tried

before the District Court is afforded a trial de novo in the

Superior Court on both the question of guilt and the sentence

received (G.L. c. 278, § 18). Appeal is taken from District

Court findings in approximately 3 per cent of criminal cases

initiated in that tribunal

Where an appeal is claimed either from the finding of guilt

of the District Court or the sentence imposed by that tribunal,

a trial de novo may be heard in any of three tribunals. In

cases where a misdemeanor is charged, the accused may elect

a trial de novo before a session of the District Court sitting

* Statistics compiled by The Honorable Franklin Flaschner, Chief Justice

of the District Courts of Massachusetts, for the year ending June 30, 1974

(Appendix A), indicate that 533,661 complaints for charges other than park-

ing violations were filed in the District Court during that period. Of those,

appeals were taken in 14,999 cases.

6

with a jury of six members (G.L. c. 218, § 27A; G.L. c. 278,

§ 18). A defendant convicted of a misdemeanor by a District

Court in Suffolk County (including the city of Boston) may

claim a trial de novo before a jury of twelve presided over by

a justice of the District Court sitting as a justice of the Supe-

rior Court (G.L. c. 278, § 18A). In any case where a felony

has been charged, de novo trial may be claimed to a felony

session of the Superior Court (G.L. c. 278, § 18). There, the

defencant may plead guilty or be tried by the Superior Court

sitting with or without a jury.

Where a sentence of less than six months imprisonment has

been imposed by the District Court, appeal must be claimed at

the time the sentence is awarded (Smith, supra, at § 743).

Where a term of more than six months has been imposed, a

claim of appeal must be filed within 24 hours of sentencing by

the District Court (G.L. c. 218, § 31). In any case, G.L.

c. 278, § 18, requires that the appealed case be entered in the

Superior Court on the next return date after the appeal is

taken, usually the Monday following imposition of sentence. A

claim of appeal may be withdrawn at any time before action

is taken by the Superior Court (G.L. c. 278, § 25), and as a

matter of practice may be withdrawn by permission of the

court at any time before a jury is empanelled.

If the appeal is pursued, however, the case is treated as if

begun in the Superior Court in the first instance, except that

neither indictment by the grand jury nor arraignment before

the Superior Court is required. The sentence imposed by the

District Court does not take effect (G.L. c. 278, § 18).

B. THe Ricut To TRIAL BY JURY IN THE First INSTANCE 1s Not

INCONSISTENT WITH THE TRIAL De Novo System As IT OPER-

ATES IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Amicus agrees with the appellant in this case that the right

to trial by jury in the first instance is secured by the Sixth and

.

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United

States. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147 (1968); Callan

v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888). However, amicus is concerned

lest this Court be persuaded that enforcement of the right

necessitates the abolition of the trial de novo system as it

operates in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or conclude

that the trial de novo system is constitutionally objectionable.

Amicus urges that the right to trial by jury in the first instance

can be recognized within the existing structure and will seldom

be exercised by defendants because in the vast majority of

cases the trial de novo system operates to the advantage of

criminal defendants.

Appellant’s brief contends that the threat of increased sen-

tence after appeal from the District Court to the Superior

Court chills the exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to trial

by jury, which right is provided only in the Superior Court

(Appellant’s brief, pp. 25-38). The experience of the Massachu-

setts Defenders Committee has been that the sentence imposed

by the District Court is seldom, if ever, raised after appeal to

the Superior Court. In fact, sentences given by the District

Court are frequently lowered by the Superior Court. More-

over, of sentences imposed by the District Court, substantially

less than 20 per cent result in commitment (Appendix B). Only

9 percent of the Committee's clients elect to appeal their cases

(Appendix B).

* In any event, a defendant claiming an appeal to the Superior Court

who is threatened with an increased sentence may withdraw his appeal at

any time (G.L. c. 278, § 25). Thus, an accused is not penalized by asserting

his right to-trial de novo in the Superior Court. Rather, he not only knows

the outer limits of his liability before claiming an appeal, but in fact may

expect a reasonable likelihood that his sentence will be reduced by the

Superior Court. The de novo system, therefore, instead of increasing the

“anxiety and concern of the accused,” in actuality reduces it. Barker v.

Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 532 (1972).

4

8

A second contention advanced by the appellant is that inter-

posing a trial by the District Court between the filing of a

complaint and a trial by jury in the Superior Court deprives a

criminal defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to speedy

trial (Appellant's Brief, pp. 41-45). As has been pointed out

above, the Massachusetts statute provides that no continuance

may be granted in the District Court for a period exceeding

ten days unless the consent of the accused is obtained (G.L.

c. 276, § 35). Absent delay at the behest of the defendant,

District Court proceedings usually begin within ten days

after the filing of the complaint. As a matter of practice, the

proceedings in the lower court are ordinarily terminated after

one day of hearing. Thus, the longest delay an accused claim-

ing trial usually suffers in the District Court is a period of ten

days to two weeks. Further, as a matter of practice, a defend-

ant whose case is initiated in the District Court may actually

appear before a jury in the Superior Court faster than a

defendant whose case is begun by indictment by grand jury.’

’ A defendant who wants an immediate trial by jury may admit to the

facts before the District Court and submit to a finding of guilty and

imposition of sentence by that court the first time he appears. By statute, the

case is then entered in the Superior Court on the return date following the

day sentence is imposed (G.L. c. 278, § 18). When the case is entered in the

Superior Court, no indictment by grand jury or arraignment before the

Superior Court is required.

By contrast, a defendant whose case is begun by indictment by grand jury

often must wait months before the charges are brought for trial before a

jury. In many of the major urban areas of Massachusetts, where a grand

jury sits monthly, an indictment mey be obtained in a month's time. In the

outlying counties, however, a defendant may have to wait for a period of

three to six months for a grand jury to convene. Once an indictment is

procured, a defendant must still be arraigned in the Superior Court and his

case must be set down for pretrial conference before trial may commence.

Thus, whereas an inaicted accused may suffer a delay in excess of six months

before being brought before a jury, a defendant whose case is begun in the

District Court may stand ready for trial before a jury within weeks of the

filing of the complaint.

9

Moreover, should this Court declare the existing trial de

novo system unconstitutional, the existing delays in bringing

criminal cases to trial would not be eliminated. On the con-

trary, forcing all cases to trial before the already overburdened

Superior Courts of Massachusetts would merely exacerbate

existing delays.

A third contention advanced by appellant is that the trial de

novo system imposes an intolerable burden on the right to trial

by jury because of the expense involved in defending two

proceedings (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 25-29). Appellant points to

the financial consequences of paying witness and counsel fees

as well as bail bondsman premiums.

With regard to witness and counsel fees, such expenses are

incurred for at most one to two days when proceedings are

initiated in the District Court. Where the District Court pro-

ceedings result in a finding of not guilty, of course no addi-

tional fees are required. Moreover, in the experience of the

Massachusetts Defenders Committee, a case which is first tried

in the District Court requires substantially less preparation

time than a case initiated by indictment because the govern-

ment’s basic contentions have been exposed at the District

Court hearing. Thus, the District Court system, rather than

increasing attorney costs, in fact reduces them.

With regard to bail bondsman premiums, that expense is

incurred only once, whether the case is initiated by grand jury

indictment or by a complaint in the District Court (G.L.

c. 278, § 18). Under no circumstances is bail forfeited merely

because an appeal is taken to the Superior Court.

Thus, some of the burdens alleged to be imposed on the

exercise of the right to trial by jury by the de novo system do

not exist or are not as severe as is asserted in appellant's brief.

Further, in the opinion of the Massachusetts Defenders Com-

mittee, substantial advantages inure to most defendants whose

cases are initiated by complaint in the District Court.

10

The first benefit an accused obtains by virtue of the de novo

system is a speedy initial determination of innocence or guilt.

Within two weeks a case may be terminated altogether.

A second substantial advantage resulting from the trial de

novo system is that an accused has two opportunities to be

found not guilty. If a defendant loses his case in the District

Court, an entirely new proceeding may be commenced in the

Superior Court, at which the defendant resumes his constitu-

tional presumption of innocence and defends his case again.

A third benefit reaped from the de novo procedure is that

the District Court proceedings provide a defendant with vir-

tually complete discovery of the Commonwealth's case.’ At the

District Court level, a defendant may file all discovery motions

permitted in the Superior Court (G.L. c. 263, § 5). The

defense may therefore both expose the witnesses for the gov-

ernment and solidify their testimony for impeachment pur-

poses at a later Superior Court trial.

Not only does the defendant incur advantages by the trial de

novo system, but the Commonwealth is benefited as well. The

Commonwealth, like defendants, has an interest in the quick

and efficient determination of criminal cases. Ninety-seven per

cent of cases initiated in the District Court are resolved in that

tribunal, at a substantially reduced cost (Appendix A).

There are cases where, because of the stigma flowing from a

finding of guilty in the District Court or because of adverse

consequences resulting automatically from a conviction in the

District Court, a defendant may wish to avail himself of his

* Unlike the federal criminal justice system, Massachusetts has no counter-

part of the “Jencks Act,” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3500. Moreover, only recently were

Massachusetts defendants awarded the right to inspect the minutes of grand

jury proceedings. Commonwealth v. Dominico, Mass. App. Ct. Adv. Sh.

(1974) 49.

11

right to trial by jury in the first instance.’ It is the position of

amicus that a defendant who wishes to exercise that right

should be permitted to do so. Callan v. Wilson, supra, 127

U.S. 540 (1888); Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, 391 U.S. 145

(1968).

What the parties to this case have not made clear, however,

is that affording a trial by jury in the first instance does not

necessitate abolition of the trial de novo system. Rather, grant-

ing the right would mean only that in a case where the

defendant moves for a trial by jury in the first instance, the

District Court judge would be required to exercise the option

provided by the Massachusetts statute to hold a probable cause

hearing instead of a trial and, if probable cause is found, bind

the defendant over to the grand jury. See Myers v. Common-

wealth, Mass. Adv. Sh. (1973) 1045; Corey v. Commonwealth,

Mass. Adv. Sh. (1973) 1237.

It is the position of amicus that this Court should hold in

favor of the appellant and recognize the right to trial by jury

in the first instance. However, amicus urges the Court to do so

in a manner consistent with the Massachusetts trial de novo

system.

* For example, G.L. c. 90, § 24, under which appellant in this case was

convicted, provides that upon a finding of guilty of any of the charges

enumerated in that section, the registrar of motor vehicles shall revoke the

licence of the accused immediately, and no appeal shall operate to stay the

revocation of the license. Under § 24, therefore, immediate and automatic

injury results from a finding of guilt in the District Court, made without a

trial by jury. Unlike all other criminal cases before that tribunal, execution

of the penalty is not stayed pending appeal to the Superior Court. See also

G.L. c. 90, §§ 20, 22A, 22F; G.L. c. 266, § 28. Cases charged under G L.

c. 90, § 24, however, comprise less than 6 per cent of criminal complaints

brought in the District Court (Appendix A).

12

Conclusion.

For the above-stated reasons, amicus curiae, the Massachu-

setts Defenders Committee, concludes that the conviction

below should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

GERARD F. SCHAEFER,

Chief Counsel,

MALVINE NATHANSON,

Chief, Appeals Division,

MARGARET D. McGAUGHEY,

MASSACHUSETTS DEFENDERS

COMMITTEE,

120 Boylston Street,

Boston, Massachusetts 02116.

Counsel for Amicus Curiae.

POOR COPY

STATISTICS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF MA

i : : Fi ; t * ov) 10 a be

rf ; as Gane ale as ip

?

eis) 7

4 3/3 c s ‘

¢ 4 z 2 2 5

ie Z < 18141 2 2¢ m

DISTRICT COURTS z é fei Ae) ta ie Rae $2 rs

sreaniged BAS PSE ea ea 2 8 eee ta

Koi danee wil z E ae Z o giz é Z 4,2 : .

2 . : £ fe ¢ 7 “17 $ = : 4 2

1970 CENSUS 2 >Pesl 2S #3 3 P ii i} 4

4 3 +2 . ‘ sl= ; = fe .= 5

bs - 2¢ 3 Rae oie. C -% 23

13/8] 2) FEEL Ee. a) 2] GEL E

z Z = od 22 3%

- See eee iter ee ee) oe

1 Central Wotcester 4.0% 4 the Ba ai? is 10 : : Loe 14090 | sue 70} a7

2 Springteld. .. . . i tor 1 te “M4 > 144 sto}2a]d «73 tow LL 2

3 bast Nortotk. Quins ose $i tai] 47 wa 1] OT bts | sear | do toe | 48 ih)

4 Ist bastern Middleses. Malden Pan) oe ta | dea 4} of o ft iaod scat d tone ld a

§ tee isss. 2.573 lon Tee 1% ile tha Re? “4nd | ta oso teh 60

6 Jedbast. Middle ses Cambridec a | “6 “wa ® miter 2 Ale seme tte te 247 2:

7 Dorchester... ‘ tort aya | i4a 94° ae 410] 2024 | 1.977 a7ae ai 222

8 Suuthern bows Loan . feu a4 vos ify is wy? #54 | 2084] 1) 488 LB Pd s)

4 Sth bast, Middieses, Woburn 1.798 278 18 ” ism | ato of | 2.1901 10.926 | 264 i4

1) Thetd Bestel Sew Bedford d07) ind ie? iat 1] 0 | 284 | 48ae] 12410 Sod 176

1) Northern Serteth Dedham... foa9 Hie m0 ty 106 jlo Se? | i.28 R4i6 120 5

he) eee bout dws 4} 94 | pie] tho) 410) 1306] #703 | 280 9

1) Second Bristol ball River, 1,322 44 inv 6) ” jlo iso |] 1484] 9940 | 314 ii

14 West Roxbury + lia leu aer] ide “t | O} 0] 1005 | 1690] 10.720 | 384 “

18 tort bases. Salem lay ar “44 0s 7 ole 446 | 1439 gan ise $s

ih Ist So, Maddie wes. Framingham 1.468 4s M48 22 1% jlo AO | 1B | 14.970 | 422 2

17 Brock tor 04) %! 6 | 386 30) 4io A246 | 2,222) 11.704 s2) 4

i(k Mampsiite Northampron , $47 “a 10) a6 w 211 113 | | 408] t0.946 Sst 0

1) Sad Plymouth, Minghany YRS M0 hie v Ww 210 O73 | 1486 4 741 235 0

Me Sad bast, Middles s. Walihan, ‘48 M ia:] m fore | 2p 0] ano] asia] vases | 439 3

‘1 Contia Middioses Com ond 167 se we ” 43 ole 28s 21 e..07 M 0

I) Resburs ape > i mae wo} ited 40 ee x14 1,22 1.121] 14.260 ss” 7

2) Sewten | '200 iv? $? » mi lie I 4,57) ws 0

34 Western Nortulk. Wrentham ne ”) ay 22 4 oO; 4 147 | Lore! 958s 104 2

Is Somenille . . - 1.012 $7 ia | U8 ” ato “14 1940 | 248 ”

36 bast Kristol, bawnton ; 82) is iso] 4s wl] ole 228] 1748] 6.206] 218 bl

37 Central herkshine Pittoteld ow 4) jel) ita “# | Ole i] tooo] 6307] 123 9

6 (heles,.... 1 Oe so loa | 107 7) volo sat | 1090] 7879 | 204 102

29) Fourth Bristol, Vile |. eo) 106 ws “ “a ola te 7 £281 26 62 0

MW) funst Barnstable Barnstable iow $7 is 47 ”) 2] 0 4uy tl tae] ia. ” 6)

31° Chu ope oe 49 " SA La 8 1] 4 1) 604 $.1$5 160 $s

3) Brighton 2.04 os &) yy a0 6 ' 0 325 78) 64S 9 %

33) Central No. beses, Mawernall 70 Me ii S$! ™ 1}, OL 1ST 18M 4.49 77 w

M4 hast Boston $27 72 v7 a *! orn ake aon 3241 429 ”

SS Det Su We ncester Dudiey aia 48 oh MN al ale 132 ans vag 200 13

¥ Third Piymouth, Plymouth — wo is} 137] ‘aj 4to 429} 1.926} 7.039 | 240 3

37) Peabody... ole “ “a 23 44 ea) 40) 92) 6.257 126 0

Brookline . 9b 71 120 7 4) 4) 270 817 1,845 7 0

19 Southern Sorfoth ‘Stoughton . 1 is) 44 dM” 44 olo 7a) ‘4 cane 71 i]

40) Fitchburg | ; ion 124 SI “4 i4 0; 0 ms cerry ila 2

41) Franktin, Greenfield... . le? 4) 4 46 ‘4 o|;o 666 | 1,326 $.279 110 0

42 Suuth Boston . . : 276 6 m 9 i ilo 4 $6} 2 56 6)

4) Holvoke see : . 216 ? 68 25 18 ! 0 oF 622 6404 173 16

44°) Ist No. Middleses. Ayer 2? bd 6 14 olo 174 | 1.066 8 B89 138 0

458 Ist No. Worcester. Gardner... 195 7 »*” 0 9 o1o0 287 634 Sow 186 3

46 Martborough . sur ay Bal 27 9 1] 0 226 1,090 4 165 !

47) Ind Last. Wor, estes, c linton 4 w a Pa) ¥ 0106 9 4% 6.2% eel 2

48 Western Hampden, Westfield . 235 27 $3 2s 12 Oo, 0 770 4667 4i2 16

4% 4th Plymouth, Wareham. . $62 12 78 4s 8 910 222 | 1476 | 6.073 24 2

SO ist bast, Worcester, Westborough ind 9 67 35 i9 0; 6 734] 11.205 324 1

5S! bastern ft ssen, Gloucester... Ase 417 oA 7 16 1) 0 150 623 36%6 Pod 2

$2 basterr Hampden. Palmer... . 128 oD 2 9 0 0; 0 7M] 4941 101 0

$3° Leormmster ae ; 202 10 $3 48 6 0; 0 295 7175 ) 484 4) !

$4 Ind So. Worcester, “Unbridge . 283 8% 32 32 4 010 83 274) 2872 iss 0

$s° Notich ‘ oe : 3M 35 17 7 42 31,0 147 4ss 2.05$ se 3

56 nd Harnstable. Orleans ° é so% 47 44 24 i9 ! 1 170} 1,2 7401 0

£7 39d Su, Worcester, Milford . ° 4.4 16? 109 97 »” 010 147 6 2493 137 i

$8° Newbury port ; 300 2 Sk 23 in o| 0 78 S31] 3,746 12u i

59° West. Worcester, F. Brookfield 423 14 22 1s $ 010 in $16 1849 8S 0

00° No. Berkshire. No. Adams... . 119 6 3 0 2 Oo, 0 22 Sia 986 2 3

OE? BOR ne cvcesessscrees 9 2 13 $s a oOo, 90 1 716 348s 40 0

62" Second Essex. Amesbury... .. 254 Pal 97 75 4 ol 0 ™ 330] 3,079 uu 0

63° bourth Berkshire, Adams .... 65 32 10 10 3 ol, 0 329 1089 +6 0

(4. Charlestown abv nS 323 13 28 an in iio 10¢ M47 yt 10 9 9

62° So. B . Great Barrington . 3 w 1s 4 s oj 0 339 $37 * 0

66° Thad Loser. Ipswich . vas 50 7 9 6 4 1] 0 2s 107 S83 “4 7

67° + Franklin, Orange . nye 24 6 s ; 0 Oo; 0 46 127 671 10 0

68° MMOUN ...5.. 2s 4 a a 4 0; 0 * 217 1,245 16 0

69° tas.» mpshre Ware 63 18 4 4 2 010 16 215 372 2 0

1° Winchenn 9. .... cons ”7 4 6 6 2 010 13 226 $58 6 0

T1* Dukes, sagenees sueeanes ” M“ + 4 1 ol o $8 395 | 1.445 9 0

Ta” TIN scab vecsonus ” 4 2 ' a oOo; 0 2 166 7 0

TOTALS | 67.817 | 8674 [13.245 | 4.473 | 3,910 | OS 1 1 | 32,503) 94,723) $53.06) | 14,921] 1.57

* Indwates a court with a port: ark —

+ “All other creminal complain: ~ ted the year for the first tame. It may be calculated for ¢ carer years, however, by pe neg 5!

“Gaming,” “Operating under th “af ¢ vl bquor,” “Operating under the influence of drugs,” “Operating w a» to endanger,”

Note “Drunkenness,” reported in caries years, 1s no longer a creme, See Chapter 1076 of the Acts of 1971. effective July 1, 1973,

STATISTICS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF MASSACHUSETTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1974, AS REPORTED BY THE CLERKS OF SAID COURTS

Compiled by du office of the Chief Justice of tie District Courts

| ; ; 4 5 iD bd 9 10 ' i2 13 14 18 16 17 18t 19 20 a oe 33 24 2 26 27 28 29 30 31 a2 33 34 35

ee - ian ——+_ --—

] rs Neglect of Family Unstorm Reciprocal Eaton. cmen Remand or Transfer ( aes

$ Non-Support . pp AGL dt 2744 Acts 1958. C. 159

Eee ae. z -

Z oe Laiet z 2 a ee a a z a Zz = =

ttt 3 12/4) : Pr em SE SOA ES ake ae Pa i | -) he :

DISTRICT COURTS E Elezi2gi=s |ST4i ¢ 32 SEmigemeian: f Z é z z 3 " z

ranged Z 5 | 2% Ee) Ss Peet £ teh ee £i¢,i4 15 | 451 36 z é ‘ 2 3 g | é q

- es 4 PA z z < Py | Pa 2 3 =: j= - 4 >¢ 3 “4 . z 4 > * > FZ

cv dative wit z £144) 2] € 78181 & | & | 2s os) -=|geie | 2 1242122 1 ¢ gialziai4 : ee : gs] ? 33

: ‘7 z ALSPSZL § = 3: | 2 | 35 i¢ * |<g| 36 . - § = £ z = = |2s S 2 =?

1970 CENSUS Z Serer oerire es ar ae: Sheer? Saar eee: ? 5 Flaié 4 - | 2 bd 2 |?7] 2 3 z=

SAS det cl a hele 8 1k) A Set STE ETE a ik ; is .. 1. - Be. =3 7 ice] ts g Pe

- - 3 3 2 1212 }4 o ~é 23 23 lz 4 Sz Z z = 2 == a eee 2 z Ss E

= 4 22 é ze ]els ¢ = 55 | 28 E ss ileal # 5 5% % 5 Z Z E z 2% . 1 ae 23 - 2 | Sx £

Mee eree ae erie: 7 | 22155) 5) £2 (eRe | 95] 2 : Peet eint S 12481 thie & | 2 | 23 z

= = Z= Z a |jaiz| 7 Pr =< | 22| 2 | 8 1é é 3a 1 <6 2 5 6 2 = j é é z <c 6 1seé <= "es es 282 z

1 Central Worcester 4m mL 877) 139 120 2] > | 1.658 | 34609] 59° 703 47 43 2 184 195 | 25.974 | 9067 | 24579 | 989 118,362 66 43 $3,151.74 32 48 | 155,084.68 | 1.035] 135 $7 897 | 2.240

2 Springtield. . . . cress fh SOS T 150s ou #2 194 sto} 6733) 1200 3 132 41 8 | 356 2 | 22489 | 6.589 | 93490 | 715 43.281 271 151 | 36S.200.69 4 111 | 250,640.77 169 at 39 %s2 266

3 bast Sortotk. Quine .| 3881 $i7 3437 417 206 pr} oO] 6.143 | 3.032 f 20 446 | 48) it 657 | 10 | 408 118 | 15,865 | 2,798 1072 | 406 92 | 1,468 3 49.424 23 66 64,078.50 | 53 36 | 188.341.28 woe} 43 6 341 45K

4 Ist bastern Middieses, Malden urn v8 14° 1] 26s dua | Of of bso] 27H | bese | 88 i 339 | 19 | 186 218 9,209 | 2.272 | 24,163 | 330 60 | 1,269 3 86,419 28 38 | 162.930.03 10 2» | IT) 462.69 28S | 277 20 34) 287

$ Lowell. ... a2 3.473 lhe qos | 195 ile za 8 7] 7483} t40s0 | 48 60 71 196 real 6.459 | 6648 3,995 | 493 399 | 14%) 16 1S,414 140 | 236 | 566,348.49 | sy 17 | 174.699.50 298} 97 19 406 364

6 Ud bast, Middleses, Cambridge im Pd 8 vas a ist fur] 2 Ald] 2.273] tit08 287 2 114 4 155 242 9539 | 2,707 | $1,074 21 oss} 10 283,513 104 $7 83.439.03 29 2 | 139 9!0.26 162 85 66 283 290

7 Dotemester. .. . a . loi? $i4] 1 4487 Ja" 88 4] 0] 2.02) |] 1.972 9.789 42) 222 265 3 328 188 4,507 3.BSS 45,198 8 56 1,356 18 22,424 23 138 443,016.88 40 89 112,905.63 im | 455 % 812 380

§ Southern bows Lyon. 16 5146 re en ios |i]? 654 | 7.054] 11 483 a3) $1 306 7 202 45 7,$22 3.018 15,108 505 cl 863 10 $8453 2 75 96,290.85 2? iz 96,234.92 25? 9) 10 2 108

9 4th bast, Middlesws. Woburn 1.748 8 i 4s iso | 4] 0 686 | 2,190 | 10,926 | 264 i4 377, | 13: | 224 10% 7.826 | 2.100 1,357 | 326 56 894 & 7,524 6S 147,434.80 9 24 | 140,320.32 21 45 ar 278 4)

1) Therd Bristol New Bedford 207; 239 joa | nee 14 1] 0 | 2.184 | 48447 12.410 175 214 5 169 6,909 $115 8.798 373 - - 26,039 67 7? 95,869.87 27 3 116.608.75 lle 29 is IR} 170 | 1

1) Northern Surtotk, Dedham . . 149 ily AD ” 108 s10 $62 | 1.281] Bato | 120 3 171 3 2% 84 L 6532 1,207 3415 | 400 43 678 0 15,554 72 12 27,852.01 Ww 1S | 100,640.26 int 46 4) 187 as |t

12 Lawreme ..., rekne wit nee ms isa 4 118 tlo 410 | 1,306] 8.703 ” 372 4 105 307 462) 2,964 3,742 JOR 27 4 ”7 25,947 799 95 96.5 13.66 4 25 R679.67 191 27 7 09 ar ji

> FF) Second Bristol. falter... | 1422 a4 lay 4) ” jiu 386 | 1454) 99% 4 a} 167 | 12 | 4354 " 5,976 2,965 910 87 - $8,916 29 18 30.330.76 45 33 65.32.44 93 16 18 97 376 | 1

14) West Koubury. . . — ines lou 461] isa “) o;,ott 1,690 | 10.726 * 3 is $19 a) $.925 1895 . ist 42 862 "W 15,730 95 37 99, S88.K7 58 44 103,038.84 82 43 13 aR 128 | 1

© 1S birt Pewee. Salem ; i441 +0 ‘44 | 205 ma | olo 446) 1429] 9.308 | 156 $ 226 7 6405 | 2,20 2,567 $5 18 652 8 30,775 $3 24 | 164,921.69 | 14 10 R3RBS14 187 ‘2 198 194 | 15

im bet Se, Middle ws. Framingham 1.464 4s 248 22 1% slo 890 | 1.836] 14.970 | 422 22 425 1 282 SR | 11,098 | 2,662 1,558 | 193 15 16,906 42 | 292 | 224,240.81 2s 28 | 114,405.58 190] 30 16 19! 44] In

17) Brockton ; S04) Yo! $90 | 255 mm? | 4/0 A726 | 2.222] 11,204 | $23 a $77 | 17 63 133 SK7R | 4,269 5.291 | 243 1231) 19.391 400 43 | 334,583.67 7) 33 | ann s20.61 156 ie 6 178 39 417

& Hampdite Northampton . $47 68 102 as a a5 3 113 | 1498] 10945 | SSI 0 ye? 7 345 104 784) | 1,724 2.241 | 480 32 $55 5 81,325 146 s $1,280.90 30 20 74,682.06 27 13 8 3? 1] 1k

ly Sad Plymouth Hingham 98A 10 hie ” Ww 210 673 | 1,354 9.741 235 0 403 i 360 7 oa 2216 $73 42 oi 2 2,710 41 40 | 210,805.51 40 20 102,391.86 $0 22 4 6 72 119

MH Ia bast, Middiews, Waltham . 1348 $24 ta: 4 it 2] 0 489 | 1si4] 13,595 | 49 13 239 | 22 | 227 7 | 11,309 | 1.216 | 15,537 | 220 23 a $1,238 92 i4 31,951.04 8 14 49,799.80 100} 46 33 16i 17% | 20

Sh Central Middlesex, Com ond 167 so ae | $3 ole 28s 94) | 16, 0 329 7 352 13,769 14M 3,266 $30 6) 455 4 14 43 65,681.15 13 pS | 79,739.07 90 27 13 oj}?

2) Roxbury eno - 1 mas ao | fled | ate 66 >} 646.222 | 1.421] t4240 | 559 117 15 9 271 as 8.085 4564 93,359 M1 314,853 7 247 | 239,782.40 S4 62 | 213,076.80 2 38 i Re so |?

2h Newton , P re 1 1200 iv? $7 » Ba | 210 tt $,§72 0 $7 7 $1 4,056 1,263 25% 150 7 mi 2 70 ul 10 20,751.00 ® 47,941.11 162 49 To 239 19 12

24) Western Norfolk Wrentham. . nih ” ao 22 “ ola M471 1689] Osea] 2 2 228 0 322 58 6,785 im 4) 175 n 951 b) 1,271 oi 25 | 102,765.16 » 36 $$,328.32 83 44 il 120 ol | 24

Is Somenilly .... ‘ 1012 1$7 194 | 118 4” 4io 474] 1.308] 3.940 | 248 “ 44 2 wa 94 2,0ou 1415 12,489 | 137 25 321 v 8 8 86,137.00 $3 63 36,814.33 208 58 is 282 1s9 ] 25

6 bis Bristol, faunton 6... $23 is iso} 45 4] Oo] 0 225 | 1.748] 6.206 | 218 $ 232 4] 425 9 ceo | 1417 | 417 6,629 S4 77 | 100,473.00 26 2s 63,008. 34 i4 6 $$ 44 | 26

27 Central Berkshire Prttstield . . ow 4 iol) ite 4 | Olo 1341] 1.069] $307 | 123 9 165 2 2 i 3,124 | 1,664 6592 | 21 21 12 $4,179 6 | 105 | $71,078.25 39 19 69,970.39 34 8 4 % 1$ | 27

8 ‘ ary 1061 180 lo4 | 107 % |} Olu Sat | 1,090] 7.876 102 162 6} 2 110 4426 | 2,563 2.010 | 261 2 11 2s 9310 1 68 | 362.476.33 8 10 13,873.00 8S 3 ? 89 277 | 28

” Ww Attienoto .. 144 106 4s “ sa} oO} 60 26] 1.251] 7.216 62 0 87 1 259 » 2040 | 4,631 3” 4 2,218 2s $7 | 198,217.26 2s 38 $6,323.05 43 13 7 44 30 | 29

W bust Barnstable Barnstable... | 1.698 $7 28 4 ” 210 433] 2.837 | 12,330 0 6) $73 4 395 83 7431 3741 1841 575 23 1,145 1 isnt 41 43 49,216.36 27 37 | 101,792.37 66 17 8 70 29 | 30

31° Chicoper....... ri 189 23 a8 Be 8 110 is 609 | 5.15 160 5 139 2 12 42 3,709 | 1,026 % i) o2) 29 338 8 $9,977.14 | 45 2 24,817.21 4 14 s 4 0} 31

DS $2 GOONER. er cecsses 995 8) 3n7 49 6s 1} o0 325 782) 6453 | 199 16 128 5 mn 50 3134 | 2,763 995 75 “ 200 a 31,770 4 28 96,212.36 Ty Mu 47,046.49 $s ? 3 87 31 4 32

5 3d) Central No. b ses, Mawerhili . 770 M0 ae) $i Th 3, 0115390) 18 5.539 77 w ‘4 0 163 n 2834 2,089 467 is 9 316 9 916 10 RS 99,076.00 44 a4 $6,722.80 89 20 7 6? $3 | 33

$4 bast Boton. oe cee eres $27 72 197 47 $1 ole 486 878] 3.235 129 249 $3 8 $0 78 Lone | 1,198 6442 | 149 3 198} 10 88.045 6 | 16S | 106,531.22 20 18 40,895.60 “ 14 7 61 $4] 34

18 Ist S.. Worcester, Dudley ‘ 4i4 48 8 " a) ole 132 995] 9,149 | 200 3 134 3 104 33 7521 14) 226 | 216 28 2 4 4.133 6 42 $6,436.46 | 47 7s 87,253.48 116 30 22 134 78 | 35

M) Third Pivmouth. Plymouth. . yO is! 137 ” “4 4106 429 | 1,926] 7.039 | 246 3 318 i 349 16 4.88) 1,165 159 | 218 19 «| 1,074 7 2.874 14 1S | 115,299.45 12 31 43,991.14 46 1 2 3 26 | 36

37 Peabody ..... 616 so $3 be 44 1146 402 92] 6.257 | 128 0 19? o | 120 35 4.185 | 1,597 280 | 135 15 1,201 ' 6.607 ? 13 48.677.60 8 1 33,392.94 136] 44 17 132 20 | 37

18 Brookline ....... iy 916 71 120 37 $3 4ii 270 817 | 1845 1 0 is 1 23 " 989 755 9.509 x” 0 138 1 119,401 1 1 24,560.00 6 7 94,475.79 88 2 14 18 67 | 38

19 Southern Norfolk, Stoughton . . 726 182 S4 »” $s O10 283 845} 5,879 71 i mt 4 299 6! Balad 1,223 2 121 28 ou 4 y 0 ti 87.261.43 q 4 29,487.20 82 $2 w 14 si | 39

S 4 titchbuyg...... oo) 6,020 129 SI ‘4 14 olo 10s 5,394 | 114 2 2 2 161 w 3,728 | 1,136 62 142 22 41g] tt 18,$42 O | 121 | 188,922.91 3 21 41,198.62 118] 85 1s 16s 229 | 40

_ 41) Franklin, Greenfield... . ‘ le? 4) 4 46 14 Oo; 0 666 | 1,326 $,279 110 0 191 1 175 3 3349 1420 92 147 x” 504 23 5,783 2 38 45,941.16 1s 18 $6,561.18 2 tu 7 19 | 4!

| 42 SuuthBoston..... bees 276 6 im 9 mELito 294 So | 2,098 56 63 78 0 "1 40 3] 1,497 10,436 2 371 3 25.504 3 89 | 121,295.82 i 13 24,109.14 17 s 0 23 s9 | 42

—@ 43 Holyoke ..... aie ; 226 3 68 25 is | ij o 09 622] 6494 | 173 16 207 ) 17 24114 | 3,880 7559 | 323 0 $72 7 12,169 12 8 | 114,255.90 1 9 40,708.64 97} 3 2 102 37 | 43

44 Ist No. Middieses. Ayer... 232 28 % 6 14 o| 0 174 | 1,066] 8.88) 135 0 224 5 148 6 6, 1,372 169 16 3431 28 0 $ $$ | 102,022.75 30 “ 65,530.00 $2 " 0 $3 a8 | 44

48 «Ist No Worcester, Gardner. 195 7 28 0 19 | Oo} O 287 634] 5.018 | 185 3 4 2 64 37 3,279 | 1,230 3,234 | $37 17 46 s 6.897 R4 26 20,834.93 s s 42.055 2s 41 4 3 39 > | 4s

| 46 Marlborough. ..... none $07 40 mt 27 9 1} 0 226] 1090] 4 165 1 it 2 2,551 1,187 2.261 137 2” 36} $ 10,172 s 27 92,407.83 2 12 71.677.66 a 9 3 43 1? | 46

- 67 Ind bast. Worcester, Clinton . . 64 30 46 ” ” 0) 6 149 4% | 5.2% 9 2 9 6 135 23 3,956 2 Oo} 142 25 445 8 $025 3 39 96,551.41 25 i0 48 468.47 73 13 6 73 6? | 47

«48 Western Hampden, Westfield . . 225 27 $3 25 12 o| 0 770 | 4667 | 112 is 184 oj} 175 cy 3488 659 4 as 23 au 4 2.320 0 1 29.732.% 22 41,102.73 $4 74 20 354 371 | 48

49 4th Plymouth, Wareham... 56) 12 | 45 38 9; 0 222 | 1476 | 6073 | 224 2 203 | 13 | 309 ey 3608 | 1,683 Oo |} 135 28 514 I 2s $s li $7,594.90 27 23 32,462.84 M 3 1 25 jo | 49

SO Ist bast. Worcester, Westborough ioe 9 67 35 19 Oo; 0 7341) 11,205 324 1 is 4 4 9.058 1,560 0 276 $4 466 0 2834 9 1s 77,S$82.89 7 12 76,127.02 140 8! pS] io! i4i | $9

4 4) Eastern F wen, Gloucester . . 46 417 91 70 16 1/0 150 623] 3656 | 236 2 268 0} 173 8 A219 | 1,520 213 0 373 6 32,084 o | 113 90 794.99 2% 4 $3,945.26 66 19 4 $0 22] 5

$2 Fasterr Hampden. Palmer... - 128 u 25 9 i) o|o0 $1 736] 4.941 101 0 194 3 104 27 3,815 194 i 22 381 $s $23 9 20 €7,850.$0 20 20 46,119.75 178 $1 tw 175 196 | $2

Ee errr 202 10 $3 | 48 6 0} 0 295 775 | 2484 1 3 0 62 26 1491 789 45 7 $ 3,258 s 17 | 147,800.66 8 31,773.60 6 10 4 180 5 143

$4 Ind So. Worcester, Lxbmidge. . 283 8s 32 32 4 010 83 274] 2,872 | 155 i) 49 4 23 2 1620 86 lo 278 $ 295 i 14 29,153.88 12 $ 32,011.83 42 17 5 <3 100 | s4

oe. ErPerrer ee rees 14 35 17 7 32 310 147 455 2.055 58 i) sO 0 61 12 1,013 R61 163 us P4 2 4876 0 19 40,374.57 6 3 15,729.38 4s ? i ‘“ wi ss

/ $6 Ind Barnstable. Orleans... $03 17 44 4 19 1} 170 | 1,2 7401 0 158 8 | 167 28 4.717 | 1817 21 205 33 0 14,580 s $4,151.72 i 4 38,224.73 16 3 0 IR 1s | Se

) $7 3d Su. Worcester, Milford... . 424 16? 109 7 2» 0}-0 147 634) 2493 137 1 st 1 73 27 1470 733 395 61 6 197 3 6545 3 u 61,048.32 ? 9 25,116.25 45 1s 9 * 43] $7

= $8° Newburyport... .. a 300 2 $8} 23 18 olo 78 S31] 3,746 | 120 i 168 3 | 206 19 2.278 951 409 in2 32 42 ! $.269 2 25 74,418.00 2 $ 25,160.25 it 2 0 is 3] $8

> $9° West, Worcester, F. Brookfield 123 14 22 1s $ 91 0 mt $16 1,849 85 0 SI 0 32 12 1,227 442 0 78 4 170 15 81 ° 22,941 97 17 9 15.318,91 3 10 4 4) 69 1 $9

y o0* No. Berkshire. No. Adams... . 119 6 3 i) 2] 01 0 212 $14 986 2 3 45 0 26 6 435 459 205 40 7 3 3,398 0 10 | 167,669.82 s 4 18,819.73 10 0 0 “ 4 | 60

QO UE cbeassdwawaness 92 2 13 $s 4 01 90 it 276 | 3,485 40 i) 9 1) 88 7 2.825 426 38 6 4 2s] ou 44s 1 6 24,985.00 1 4 10,594.00 Mi 0 1 2 is | 61

_ 62° Second Essex. Amesbury... .. 254 oT 7 75 4] 0} 0 74 330] 3,079 BL) 0 142 4 54 22 2,127 692 186 8 216 1 0 0 97 $9,265.86 9 3 16,975.56 3 6 2 i2 2] 62

_ -63* ~Fourth Berkshire, Adams ay 65 32 10 i0 3 010 329 | 1,089 % i) 3s i) 64 6 723 225 1 cD] 3 119 i 1,079 0 24 $5,238.00 3 1 10,601.67 8 12 1 12 4163

7 64 Charlestown... , ‘ 323 13 218] 40 18 ijo 105 347] 1,110 9 9 18 0 18 77 477 555 2.702 62 10 127 1 3.760 0 2s $1,918.13 4 4 11,330. 2 8 i 66 24 | 64

| So, Berkshire, Great Barrington . 113 w 15 4 $s o| 0 46 339] 2,537 8 0 126 1 45 4 1,742 611 61 2 44 2 74 0 19 45,780.00 12 7 18,507.25 4 4 2 4 1 | 6s

e Third Lisex. Ipswich... $0 7 4 6 a 11 0 25 167 $83 44 7 7 0 32 i) 2 176 73 23 8 59 0 671 0 3 13,341.00 3 2 8,584.98 is 3 2 « 6 | 66

os bast. Franklin, Orange... “4 6 $ 3 0 0} 0 45 127 671 10 i) 23 0 20 8 7 163 0 10 1 59 3 i) 1 19 14,111.51 0 4 5,470.00 0 0 0 0 6 | 67

Wilhamstown ..... swine 25 4 4 4 4 0} 0 217] ‘1,245 16 ) 16 0 40 4 1,045 126 242 5 x” 0 648 i) 3 2,260.00 0 4 4,792.03 1 0 i) i) 1 | 68

bast. Hampshire, Ware... 63 is 4 4 2 0] 0 16 215 37 2 0 12 0 16 1 170 i771 0) 16 2 $4 2 267 0 9 4,215.00 6 0 10,031.36 ! 2 0 2 >) 69

WenchenGeR.. 0. ssc ccees 7 4 6 6 2 0; 0 3 226 $58 6 0 27 0 6 10 257 202 0 83 1 9% 0 107 0 6 8 4ASE.00 3 2 6825.00 a 2 0 * &] 70

Dukes. tdgartown ... . ° “ 4 4 ! 0; 0 38 395 1445 9 0 42 0 ” 7 49 3M 2 7 0 6,755 0 0 1,732.6 7 s 9,100.00 0 0 0 0 3] 71

Pl, a re ” 4 2 1 a 0} 0 166 468 7 0 21 1 23 2 PU] 184 156 9 0 87 0 3,138 0 0 0 2 3 11,529.00 0 0 0 0 24 72

TOTALS | 67.817 | 8.674 113,245 | 4.473 | 3,910 | 95 | 11 | 32,503 94,723} 533,661 | 14,921 | 1,577 | 14,583 | 318 | 12,230] 5,082 | 348,821 | 136,129 $10,466 | 14,999 | 1.572] 33,481] 525 | 1,981,580 | 2,332 | 3,485 | 7,741,593.11} 1.434 | 1,499 | 4.515.191.12] 7.202] eis | 847 9016 | 8.727

Indu ates a court with a part-time Justice. BS ae ed

+ Ait other criminal complaints” js reported this year for the first time, It may be calculated for earber years, however, by subtracting from “Total criminal complaints (except parking)” the sum of ul

“Gaming.” “Operating under the influence of liquor,” “Operating under the influence of drugs.” “Operating so as to endanger,” “Using without authority and “All other motor vehicle complaints (except parking).

/

Note “Deunkenness,” reported in earier years, 1s no longer a crime, See Chapter 1076 of the Acts of 1971, effective July 1, 1973.

DISTRICT COURTS

Appendix B.—15

MASSACHUSETTS DEFENDERS COMMITTEE

REPORT OF CASES OF DEFENDANTS WHO WERE ASSIGNED BY COURTS

TO BE REPPESCUTED BY MOC AND DISPOSITIONS OF SUCII] CASES.

7/1/73 to 6/30/74

= © 9 8 Ff 8 S

Period

scans i bs] lelelzl.iflels

DEFENDANTS ASSIGNED | a 4 3) ov 5 2 é Fe z 3 a %

py COURTS: PSE Slslelaleieisielgleiei2

eee lee el elelalei 2/2/3181

aleZl(2Z/Slalz/B8lalelal ls Sle l2ie

Pending at beqinningsamf/PIFZPy¥ 257 | 2 | © |We7| 513 1776 | oF o |\/27

Pending 2t end Hood |2 91 1/0 | © 143921397 | el /P |e |¥es

Received in ceriod |sévo s2z| 2 ose |\/P | © Vr fovzestaye7/ 937 SG | Fe_1239/| 20229

Disp2sed_in period |yevz] 797| © 1963 |/0 | O esx Z| 24412291162 |C¥ [20/9 | 77/27

Charges involved 7¢70 VPLS. ig | ZO| - jar2Vi7e J04 \/be Ahes—

Defts.Not fooresented gsr | 25% ZeS | 2 | ~ | 278) G6) ¥/f! 163! 327) / | © | 5G) 2907

Charges involved SOG \4SS 533 | 3 ~ (5961/23 | £4! 112 | 638 ‘je 13%) $307

Defts. Represented 3707 | 7¥/ erg - |477 LG2/ \/9o¥! / 1 OY 1742! Zy32/

Charges Involved _ |sre2|s370 31/7 | = [2byz 211/07 \/bo 678| 275h7

Defendants Tried 272 | 6¥¥ o| 7 1049 {23 , ¥| C/ | OY V¥FEi (27/9

Defendants kelcasedjzes9| ss7 #77) @ 952) £35 Rofo |$29' 1577! SV 305) /1SS¥

Defts. Comnitted 2ro| %% aw: GL | 88 | /H | BP) 25) 2 | 6 8 Ley

Charges involved 82 127L¢ (S14 11393178 \/07 |Zeo |?883| 24707

Dismissec 23/2 |365- ¥22\ 2 M43 | 441 \1097)| LO3VZ4H, SY | 23 | 35/) S689

Filed w/o a finding s¥! 2 /Z CART 25) 4/

Cont'd w/o finding | 2 / $37 | 2/8 2561 (of as/| J 77 | 237/

Not Guilty S55 1/21 S27) 1 Le | 27286) He | /97| 3 | 2 P76! AP

Guilty Less.Offense #2} 3 Sz Ll = _ LF

Guilty as charged |sas/|6% 155) ff 2131918 12741 749 #7 | L3¥-V7 2 [2259

Dispositions of all

Guilty Findings: 4273 97 7 229 DY) 749 shsy ¢) 134 (782 /BUE

Probation 27s \ ih 372 L9| LAN S: 2ia/ | & 1256) /229

Filed 25| 77 “sy | 3 Le 672 \ 432) /¥31 3 | /e NAEP | Bea

Fined 26 | /fo 165" £01237 | SE i268 4749) £ LHe 147! | 50

Youth Serv., Susp'd |y7z | 3/ 43) 25\/401 214 Lj|ve!| 69

Youth Serv.Comaitted sso | se 3 47) 73\ 49 go 2 \9F | S74

HC_under 6 mo.Susp'd 77 |32 24 BTM 318 1/031 2751/2 14.2 | 94

HC_under 6 mo.Comn'dl ¢s¢|z3 “4 S21 Ke] OF 1) 77) 2 1/7 Nay

HC_ 6 mo.-1l yr.Susp'd ¢g |s/ e3\ / SF | 24 | (He! 1) 76 w3_| 33 | $¢3

HC 6 mo.-1] yr.Comm'd gp | 23 “useil 24122 |e! 26153 a/i2 +a

HC 1 yr.& morc,Susp.Vrr | ¥e 7013 L#\ 4 | £2) £3\ 50 4123) 472

KC) yr.& more,Comm.|775°|37 7) 26 Fl 2s a2 |23 | vor

Mass.Cam’l Inst.Susp.| 6/ 7. tA 2il

Mass .Corr'l Inst.Comn.| 24| 70 F 20 Ss $l im

State Parm Committed ~ 3

Sentences Accevted 153| & P56) 2085 GL bY 5/334) 1/567

Charges involved “py: (Fd2\/ 3 4 G¥T) (07 | loo \2575| 22286

Sentences Appealed [22q F 67\ / Z| 67| we! ba| 401 - - | 492) (057

Charges involved _|3¥¥} 457 / 2177201368 1//0| 23/| - | - |28R] sfo/

Defendants referred ~

to TASC