Supreme Judicial Court Rules That Victim Witness Advocates’ Notes are Protected By Karen Dempsey In a decision vital to advocates’ ability to serve crime victims, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously that the notes of a victim witness advocate are protected by the same rules applied to a prosecutor’s notes. The ruling recognizes advocates as essential members of the prosecution team and underscores the critical nature of the advocate’s role in protecting victim rights throughout the prosecution process. Issue presented The issue before the Court involved a district court judge’s order that prosecutors disclose the notes of a victim witness advocate in a criminal case. The defendant in that case was charged with two counts of assault, two counts of threatening to commit a crime, and violation of a Chapter 209A abuse protection order. The defense filed a motion requesting disclosure of the victim witness advocate’s notes, arguing that such notes may contain the statements of witnesses. A Boston Municipal Court judge agreed, and ordered the Commonwealth to turn over the notes. In response, the Commonwealth appealed to a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court and requested an emergency stay of the judge’s order. The single justice issued the stay and reported the case to the full Court. The Commonwealth’s argument The Commonwealth argued that the victim witness advocate is part of the prosecution team and an advocate’s notes are therefore subject to the same rules of disclosure as a prosecutor’s notes. The rules of disclosure already require that the Commonwealth disclose any statements of witnesses and any exculpatory evidence, or evidence which could disprove the defendant’s guilt. Attorney General Tom Reilly, the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance (MOVA) and all eleven Massachusetts District Attorneys filed an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief supporting the Commonwealth’s position. The brief reviewed the history of prosecution-based advocacy, the emergence of victim witness advocate programs, and the critical nature of their work serving crime victims. As outlined in the brief, the implementation of victim witness assistance programs in the 1970s and the legislation which followed to protect their continued existence came in response to growing recognition that victims were mistreated by a system dramatically out of balance. The Court specifically referenced this research in its written decision. The Court’s decision The Court concluded that “the work of advocates is subject to the same legal discovery obligations as that of prosecutors and their notes are subject to the same discovery rules.” The Court found that “advocates themselves have a duty to relay to the prosecutor any information they believe is exculpatory” and that prosecutors have a duty to disclose any exculpatory evidence or witness statements in the possession of an advocate. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the Commonwealth’s position that other information contained in an advocate’s notes is protected. Conclusion Advocates in Massachusetts and across the country welcomed the decision by the state’s highest Court. In issuing its decision, the Court demonstrates that it understands the intentions of victim rights legislation and values the rights and needs of crime victims. The Court’s findings further highlight the importance of collaborative efforts between prosecutors and victim witness advocates, given their different roles and training, and conveys that advocates can and do act knowledgeably, ethically and professionally when it comes to upholding the discovery rules around exculpatory evidence and witness statements. View the complete text of Commonwealth v. Liang.