Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Supreme Court justices debate whether protective order denied Craig Hood meaningful plea consultation
Summary
At oral argument in Commonwealth v. Craig Hood, defense counsel argued that an overly broad protective order prevented meaningful consultation about roughly 2,000 pages of Mulligan‑related discovery — including hotline tips and a 1996 Hansen report — and therefore rendered Hood's guilty plea unknowing and involuntary. The Commonwealth urged affirmance, saying the motion judge found no prejudice.
At an oral argument before the state Supreme Court, defense attorney Jennifer O’Brien said her client, Craig Hood, was deprived of “meaningful consultation” with counsel about material discovery because a pretrial protective order allowed counsel to receive documents but prohibited sharing or discussing them with the defendant, undermining the voluntariness of his guilty plea.
O’Brien (Defense counsel) told the justices the protected materials amounted to about 2,000 pages — she described roughly 200 police reports related to the Mulligan investigation, 600 pages of grand‑jury material or transcribed interviews, and 130 pages of hotline tips — and said that information included third‑party‑culprit evidence that could have altered Hood’s decision to plead. “The defendant was deprived of meaningful consultation with his attorney,” O’Brien said, arguing the restriction was not narrowly tailored to the asserted safety concerns.
The issue matters, O’Brien told the court,…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
