Mass. court hears challenge to authentication of Brockton docket in Shaw appeal

At a session of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Haley Jacobson, attorney for Jose M. Shaw, argued that a Brockton District Court docket printout offered at Shaw’s trial (Exhibit 1) was not properly authenticated because it lacked a written attestation certifying that the copy was compared with an original. "Without that attestation, exhibit 1 was not properly authenticated, and it was not admissible and should not have been admitted," Jacobson told the court.

Jacobson urged the court to vacate the sentence enhancement tied to a predicate offense because, she said, the docket printout was the only evidence introduced at trial to prove that element. Jacobson argued the raised clerk’s seal and a signature do not show that any person compared the copy to the original and therefore do not satisfy the attestation requirement under the court’s Duramo precedent and Rule 40.

Justices questioned whether the statutory language (section 76) on attestation plainly extends to court documents; Jacobson replied that even if section 76 were ambiguous, Rule 40 independently requires attestation and governs the authentication of court records. She also told the court that electronic docket printouts are not immune from errors — pages can be missing or printouts flawed — and so attestation remains necessary even for electronic records.

Arna Hansen, arguing for the Commonwealth, countered that Massachusetts rules and controlling cases support treating the clerk magistrate’s signature together with the court’s raised seal as sufficient attestation. "The seal itself...serves as the written attestation," Hansen said, adding that the seal is not easily replicated and that a signature identifies the custodian of records. Hansen cited Rule 40, Mass. guidance, and appellate decisions (including Babcock) as supporting authority.

The Commonwealth acknowledged the practical burden of signing or stamping many pages in a long record but argued the defendant had not shown prejudice from admission of the document. Hansen stated that the Commonwealth later obtained a copy for appellate review and found no material differences; she also pointed to the trial transcript where defense counsel (Attorney Green) effectively conceded the conviction on the underlying charge and to multiple officer identifications introduced at trial.

The justices pressed both sides on whether a judge deciding admissibility could rely on the nature of the record and on whether the proper quantum of proof for authentication (preponderance) would weigh in favor of admitting a sealed, signed docket. The hearing concluded with the Commonwealth offering to address remaining points in briefing. No decision was announced at the session.

The court will consider the parties’ briefs and relevant precedents (including Duramo and cited appellate decisions) before issuing an opinion on whether the printout was properly authenticated and whether its admission requires vacation of the sentence enhancement.