SJC hears dispute over compelled psychiatric exam in Germaine Berry Perez resentencing

The Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments on whether the Commonwealth may compel a psychiatric examination of Germaine Berry during a post‑conviction Perez resentencing proceeding, a step defense counsel says would violate Berry’s rights against compelled self‑incrimination and privacy.

The question before the court is whether the fairness doctrine and analogies to pretrial rule 14 permit the Commonwealth to obtain a court‑ordered psychiatric evaluation after a defendant has submitted mitigation evidence at a resentencing hearing. Defense counsel said such an order would require statutory or decisional authority and is not covered by ordinary post‑conviction discovery under rule 30.

Attorney Elizabeth Caddock, counsel for Germaine Berry, told the court that Berry requested a constitutionally required Perez resentencing hearing after receiving consecutive sentences while he was 20 that lengthened his parole eligibility. She argued the defense’s filing and supporting materials were intended to place Berry’s upbringing, adverse childhood events and post‑sentencing rehabilitation before a resentencing judge, not to waive constitutional protections. “No case, no rule, no statute has ever said that…