NO. SJC-10824 PURSUANT TO GLC 211, 5 3 FROM ... - Mass Cases

Thus, where the lower court incorrectly applied
the sex offender GPS statute to Aldrich, despite the
fact that Aldrich was - not a convicted sex offender;
there were - no sexual assault victims or children
involved (G.L.c. 258B, S 3(m)) 12/; I
no allegations
of threats or intimidation to victims and witnesses
(G.L.c. 268, 5 13B); and I
no allegations of privileged
communications (G.L.c. 233, 55 20Y and 20K); there
was a substantive violation of Aldrich's substantial
constitutional rights to due process and the confron-
tation clause where Aldrich was systematically denied
access to witnesses by the imposition of a one-sided
I,
written consent requirement", which denied Aldrich
his right to a fair trial. Commonwealth v. Balliro,
349 Mass. 505, 517 (1965)("To say that a defendant
has a right to present his defence and then deprive
him of the means of effectively exercising that right
would reduce the guaranty to an idle gesture"). See
and compare State v. MurtaRh, Alaska, No. S-11988/
12007(2007)(ruling that the written consent requirrnent
to be unconstitutional). Under these circumstances,
Aldrich i s entitled to relief.
I,
12/ G.L.c. 2588, 5 3(rn), states: For victims and
witnesses, to be informed of the right to submit to
or decline an interview by defense counsel or anyone
actine. on the defendant's behalf. eXCeDt when resoonding
ti lawful process " See C.S. v: Bailey, 824
F.2d. 218 (1st. cir. jGk?)?An uniustified denial of
access to wit.nesses within 'governmental 'control implicates
constitutionally protected rights).
47