Exoneree Tells Appeals Court DOC Kept Six Months of Original Mail; Department Says Items Were Returned
Loading...
Summary
Edward Wright, recently exonerated, told the Massachusetts Appeals Court that the Department of Correction still holds roughly six months of his original mail seized in 2021; DOC counsel said they returned boxes of items and argued the case may be moot or procedurally barred. The panel pressed both sides on factual discrepancies.
Edward Wright, released and exonerated after decades in prison, told the panel he has not received approximately six months of his original incoming mail and sought a declaratory judgment and injunction requiring the Department of Correction to return those items.
Wright said DOC staff provided photocopies for part of the period but kept originals from about April through November 2021. "They still have at least six months of the mail," Wright told the court, and said the missing envelopes included photographs and other originals that photocopies cannot replace.
Yasmin Bailey, counsel for the Department of Correction, responded that DOC had returned the mail and provided multiple boxes when Wright came to retrieve property; she said the agency does not keep the items and that, on their view, the case may be moot. DOC counsel also raised procedural defenses — prior‑pending action/claim splitting — tied to related litigation (Rite/Right matters) and asserted qualified‑immunity and regulatory defenses as appropriate in different pleadings.
The panel probed whether a factual dispute about whether DOC still holds originals is a trial‑court question requiring evidentiary development, and whether the regulatory‑promulgation issue CT the merits (DOC’s 2021 regulation was later revised) means injunctive relief remains available. The matter was submitted for decision.
The claim intersects administrative law (regulation promulgation), property/possession of originals vs photocopies, and remedies (injunctive vs damages) and will likely require the court to address whether remaining factual disputes make the appeal non‑moot.
