Hampden DA Suit Against US Attorney and DOJ

Case 3:21-cv-30058 Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 1 of 30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY D. GULLUNI, )
DISTRICT ATTORNEY for HAMPDEN COUNTY )
in the COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
)
NATHANIEL R. MENDELL, )
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY )
for the DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, )
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant )
COMPLAINT
This is a civil action wherein the Plaintiff seeks judicial review pursuant to the
Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), at 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, from the Defendant’s
wrongful withholding of “false” or “falsified” Springfield Police Department reports and
attendant photographs or video/digital images, as named in the publicly released Department
of Justice Report, dated July 8, 2020, entitled “Investigation of the Springfield, Massachusetts
Police Department’s Narcotics Bureau” [“Report”], co-authored by the United States
Department of Justice’s - Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the
District of Massachusetts, after Plaintiff’s demand to the Defendant for production or
disclosure pursuant to the federal Housekeeping Act, at 5 U.S.C. § 301, and the prescribed
1|Page
Department of Justice Touhy-regulations, see United States ex.rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S.
462 (1951), applicable to the request, at 28 C.F.R. § 16.21 et seq., was denied.
I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, is sworn as District Attorney for Hampden County in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“HDA”). HDA is a state agency of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. By statute, M.G.L. c. 12, §§ 12-13, 27; G.L. c. 218, § 27A, the HDA
is the primary prosecutorial authority for the western district in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, a district that geographically includes all cities and towns located in
Hampden County, Massachusetts. HDA Gulluni serves as the chief law enforcement
officer in the district. The HDA is principally located in Springfield, Massachusetts at the
Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse, 50 State Street, 3rd Floor, Springfield, Massachusetts
01102, with a telephone number of (413) 747-1000. Anthony D. Gulluni brings this action
in his official capacity.
2. Defendant, Nathaniel R. Mendell, is a natural person and currently serves as the Acting
United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. The United States Attorney’s
Office for the District of Massachusetts (“USA-MA”), is a governmental agency of the
United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The USA-MA is led by an appointed
United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. The USA-MA represents the
DOJ on all federal legal matters in the District of Massachusetts, and has a Civil Division
that includes a Civil Rights Unit. The USA-MA’s principal office is located at the John
Joseph Moakley United States Federal Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200,
Boston, Massachusetts 02210, with a telephone number of (617) 748-3100. Acting
United States Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell is being sued in his official capacity.
2|Page
II. JURISDICTION
3. Plaintiff’s action is for a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), and is
brought pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.
4. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question).
III. VENUE
5. This action is brought in the Western Division of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), as the Plaintiff principally
resides in Springfield, Massachusetts in Hampden County, geographically located in the
Western Division of the District of Massachusetts, and this is a civil action in which a
Defendant is an agency of the United States, or an officer or employee of the United
States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. The Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, is sworn as the District Attorney for the Hampden
District (HDA) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The HDA is the primary
prosecutorial agency for Hampden County in the western district of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. M.G.L. c. 12, §§ 12-13, 27; G.L. c. 218, § 27A.
2. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the district attorney, in his official capacity, is
recognized by case law to be “the people’s elected advocate for a broad spectrum of
societal interests - from ensuring that criminals are punished for wrongdoing, to
allocating limited resources to maximize public protection.” Commonwealth v. Gordon,
410 Mass. 498, 500 (1991). See Commonwealth v. Clerk-Magistrate of West Roxbury
Div. of Dist. Court, 439 Mass. 352, 360 (2003); Commonwealth v. Clerk of Boston Div.
of Juvenile Court Dep’t, 432 Mass. 693, 699 (2000).
3|Page
3. The Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA, has wide discretion
in determining whether to prosecute an individual, Commonwealth v. Ware, 482 Mass.
717, 730 (2019), “with due regard to the constitutional and other rights of the defendant.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 331 Mass. 585, 591 (1954), citing Berger v. United States, 295
U.S. 78, 88-89 (1935).
4. The HDA serves a population of 468,467 (est. 2016 Census), in five (5) cities and
eighteen (18) towns in Hampden County, Massachusetts, and prosecutes cases in state
courts located in Hampden County, Massachusetts, including five (5) district courts
(including Springfield District Court), two (2) juvenile courts (including Springfield
Juvenile Court), and one (1) superior court (Hampden County Superior Court).
5. In Fiscal Years 2016 through 2020, the eight (8) state courts located in Hampden
County entered cumulative totals of 102,605 criminal cases. See Massachusetts Trial
Court Statistical Reports and Dashboards, A Listing of Case Statistics for Trial Court
Departments by Fiscal Year, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/trial-court-statistical-
reports-and-dashboards#statistics-2014-2020-. Each one of those cases represented an
individual criminal defendant whose case was filed in a state trial court, or a division of
a state trial court over that five-year period.
6. The Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA, is sworn to uphold
the state and federal constitutions and the laws of the Commonwealth in the performance
of his duties, including the constitutional and statutory provisions related to a
prosecutor’s discovery obligations. In the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation, 485
Mass. 641 (2020); Giglio v. Unites States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83 (1963).
4|Page
7. The Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA, is a member of the
Massachusetts Bar, and is subject to the procedural rules of the courts of the
Commonwealth, including the applicable rules of criminal procedure related to a
prosecutor’s discovery obligations. Mass. R. Crim. P. 14, as amended 444 Mass. 1518
(2005).
8. The Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA, is a member of the
Massachusetts Bar, and is subject to the rules of professional responsibility, including,
where appropriate, undertaking procedural and remedial measures in the exercise of his
discovery obligations. Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor,
3.8 (d), (g), (i), and (j) and Comment 1.
9. The Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA, employs Assistant
District Attorneys, appointed by him, to assist in the performance of his duties.
10. The HDA’s Assistant District Attorneys, in their official capacities, are sworn to uphold
the state and federal constitutions and laws of the Commonwealth in the conduct of their
duties, including the constitutional and statutory provisions related to a prosecutor’s
discovery obligations. In the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation, 485 Mass. 641
(2020); Giglio v. Unites States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963).
11. The HDA’s Assistant District Attorneys are members of the Massachusetts Bar, and are
subject to the procedural rules of the courts of the Commonwealth, including the
applicable rules of criminal procedure related to a prosecutor’s discovery obligations.
Mass. R. Crim. P. 14, as amended 444 Mass. 1518 (2005).
5|Page
12. The HDA’s Assistant District Attorneys are members of the Massachusetts Bar, and are
subject to the rules of professional responsibility, including, where appropriate,
undertaking procedural and remedial measures in the exercise of their discovery
obligations. Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, 3.8 (d), (g),
(i), and (j) and Comment 1.
13. One of the prosecutorial functions of the HDA, as defined by state and federal law, and
court rule, is to disclose to an individual charged with a crime being prosecuted by the
HDA any known relevant, material, exculpatory evidence in its possession, custody or
control, even without a request from the individual charged. Committee for Pub. Counsel
Servs. v. Attorney Gen., 480 Mass. 700, 731 (2018); Commonwealth v. Ayala, 481 Mass.
46, 56 (2018). See Commonwealth v. Bing Sial Liang, 434 Mass. 131, 134-135 (2001),
citing United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 106-108 (1976) (prosecutors' duty to disclose
exculpatory evidence not limited to cases where there is a request for such evidence).
14. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the possession, custody or control of potentially
exculpatory information by the prosecutor, by court rule, is defined as persons under the
prosecutor’s direction and control, or persons who have participated in investigating or
evaluating the case and either regularly report to the prosecutor’s office or have done so
in a particular case. Mass. R. Crim. P. 14, as amended 444 Mass. 1518 (2005).
Commonwealth v. Beal, 429 Mass. 530, 531 (1999) (prosecutors' duty to disclose extends
to information in their possession or in possession of persons subject to their control).
15. The Springfield Police Department (“SPD”) is a local law enforcement agency in the
City of Springfield, Massachusetts, a city geographically located in Hampden County, in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
6|Page
16. Officers of the SPD are required by state statute or court rule to provide arrest, incident,
or investigatory reports to satisfy probable cause determinations before a magistrate or
court. See, e.g., Mass. R. Crim. P. 3(g), as appearing 442 Mass. 1502 (2004); G.L. c.
276, § 58A(4); G.L. c. 276, § 1.
17. SPD arrest, incident, or investigatory reports and attendant photographs or video/digital
images, among other materials, are provided to HDA assistant district attorneys to fulfill
the prosecutor’s discovery obligations to an individual charged with a crime.
18. Officers of the SPD testify to the content of arrest, incident, or investigatory reports, and
attendant photographs or video/digital images, under oath, in grand jury proceedings and
at pretrial, trial, and post-conviction evidentiary hearings of criminally charged
individuals in Hampden County Superior Court, Springfield District Court, and
Springfield Juvenile Court.
19. On July 8, 2019, the Defendant USA-MA publicly released a report, of twenty-eight
pages in length, co-authored by the Defendant USA-MA and the United States
Department of Justice – Civil Rights Division [DOJ DIVISION] entitled “Investigation
of the Springfield, Massachusetts Police Department’s Narcotics Bureau [“Report”]. A
copy of the Report is attached, and noted as Exhibit A. The contents of the Report, in
total, are incorporated herein.
20. The Report’s investigation of the SPD Narcotics Bureau was stated to have begun on
April 13, 2018, and spanned twenty-eight (28) months from its initiation to the release of
its findings. The statutory authority for the investigation detailed in the report was
pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C.
§ 12601.
7|Page
21. The Executive Summary of the Report, Report at 3, states that investigators jointly from
the Defendant USA-MA and the United States Department of Justice - Civil Rights
Division (“DOJ DIVISION”) conducted a comprehensive review of 114,000 pages of
Springfield Police Department documents, including an unspecified number of “incident
reports” and “investigative reports.”
22. The Report, Report at 9, states that Defendant USA-MA and DOJ DIVISION
investigators sought and received SPD documents, including 1,700 prisoner injury files,
26,000 arrest reports and over 700 use-of-force reports created from 2013 through 2019.
23. The Report, Report at 2, states that Defendant USA-MA and DOJ DIVISION
investigators reviewed 5,500 arrest reports and 10 use-of-force reports from the SPD’s
Narcotics Bureau from 2013-2018.
24. The Report, Report at 2, states that the Defendant USA-MA and DOJ DIVISION
investigators found “examples where [SPD] Narcotics Bureau officers falsified reports
to disguise or hide their use of force.”
25. The Report, Report at 9, states there was “… a pattern or practice … [where SPD] officers
made false reports that were inconsistent with other available evidence, including video
and photographs….”
26. The Report, Report at 2, states the Defendant USA-MA and DOJ DIVISION
investigators concluded that “there is reasonable cause to believe that [SPD] Narcotics
Bureau officers engage[d] in a pattern or practice of excessive force in violation of the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
27. The Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA, did not conduct the
investigation and was not informed of the process or reported findings of the Defendant’s
8|Page
USA-MA’s and DOJ DIVISION’s twenty-eighth month long joint investigation of the
SPD’s Narcotics Bureau, prior to the Report’s publication.
28. The Plaintiff, Anthony D, Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA, does not have
knowing possession, custody or control of the SPD officers’ reports deemed “false” or
“falsified” as detailed in the Report.
29. After the Report release, HDA First Assistant District Attorney [HDA First ADA]
Jennifer N. Fitzgerald received a telephone call from Torey Cummings, an Assistant
United States Attorney (“AUSA”) with the Civil Rights Division of the Defendant USA-
MA. AUSA Cummings told HDA First ADA Fitzgerald that she had been involved in
the investigation and issuance of the Report.
30. AUSA Cummings’ stated purpose of the telephone call was to inquire if the HDA had
“any questions” about the Report. The parties agreed to speak after the HDA had an
adequate time to review the contents of the Report.
31. On July 20, 2020, HDA First ADA Fitzgerald spoke with AUSA Cummings, by
telephone, and, in her official capacity, orally requested of AUSA Cummings that the
HDA be provided with the SPD reports that investigators referenced in the Report where
“officers falsified reports” or “officers made false reports”. HDA First ADA Fitzgerald
told AUSA Cummings that HDA assistant district attorneys needed to identify the false
or falsified SPD reports and review them to determine their discovery obligations,
pursuant to Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)] and the Massachusetts Rules of
Criminal Procedure [Mass. R. Crim. P. 14, as appearing in 442 Mass. 1518 (2004)]. The
parties agreed to speak after AUSA Cummings had sufficient time to consider the HDA’s
request.
9|Page
32. On July 28, 2020, HDA First ADA Fitzgerald left a voice message for AUSA Cummings
concerning the status of the HDA’s July 20th request for the SPD’s officers’ false or
falsified reports.
33. Later in the day on July 28th, HDA First ADA Fitzgerald received an email from AUSA
Cummings stating that the request for the SPD’s false or falsified reports was still under
consideration.
34. Thereafter, on August 6, 2020, HDA First ADA Fitzgerald, AUSA Cummings, and Jude
Volek, an AUSA with the DOJ DIVISION, spoke by telephone.
35. AUSA Volek told HDA First ADA Fitzgerald that he had participated in the investigation
and issuance of the Report.
36. In the August 6th telephone conversation, HDA’s oral request for the production of the
SPD officers’ false or falsified reports was denied.
37. During the August 6th telephone conversation, AUSA Cummings and AUSA Volek
collectively advised HDA First ADA Fitzgerald that after discussion with members of
the Department of Justice’s Professional Responsibility Unit and the DOJ DIVISION,
the Defendant USA-MA and the DOJ concluded it would withhold the SPD’s false or
falsified reports from the HDA.
38. The grounds AUSA Cummings and AUSA Volek provided HDA First ADA Fitzgerald
to withhold the “false”or “falsified” reports were: (1) the requested reports were
confidential and (2) available from the SPD; (3) the calculus for exculpatory information
was different for the Department of Justice; and, (4) the rules for Brady material did not
extend to the DOJ DIVISION.
10 | P a g e
39. In response, HDA First ADA Fitzgerald told AUSA Cummings and AUSA Volek, during
the August 6th telephone conversation, that the HDA was only seeking the production of
SPD officers’ false or falsified reports as detailed in the Report, and was not seeking any
confidential, privileged, or investigatory material.
40. AUSA Cummings and AUSA Volek then told HDA First ADA Fitzgerald to request the
SPD officers’ false or falsified reports from the SPD.
41. When further questioned by HDA First ADA Fitzgerald about this statement, AUSA
Cummings and AUSA Volek acknowledged that SPD was not told specifically which
reports of the thousands of reports that had been provided to the Defendant USA-MA
and DOJ DIVISION investigators during the investigation were false or falsified, as
found in the Report. A fact later confirmed by the SPD.
42. On August 19, 2020, the Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA,
wrote a letter to Andrew E. Lelling, then-United States Attorney for the Defendant (USA-
MA), in his official capacity as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA. A copy of the
letter is attached, and noted as Exhibit B. The contents of the letter, in total, are
incorporated herein.
43. On August 19, 2020, the Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA,
wrote a letter to Eric S. Dreiband, then-Assistant Attorney General (AAG), in his official
capacity as lead attorney for the DOJ DIVISION that joined the Defendant USA-MA in
the investigation and issuance of the Report. A copy of the letter is attached, and noted
as Exhibit C. The contents of the letter, in total, are incorporated herein.
11 | P a g e
44. The Plaintiff’s, Anthony D, Gulluni’s August 19th letter to then-USA-MA Lelling was
sent by FedEx courier, and delivered to his principal address on August 20, 2020 at 11:41
am.
45. The Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, August 19th letter to then-AAG Dreiband was sent
by FedEx courier, and delivered to his principal address on August 20, 2020 at 9:54 am.
46. The Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, August 19th letters to then-USA-MA Lelling, in
his official capacity as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA, and then-AAG
Dreiband, in his official capacity as lead attorney for the DOJ DIVISION, were identical
in content, and requested of each the production or disclosure of “false” or “falsified”
SPD reports and attendant photographs or video/digital images, more specifically
described in the letter at pp. 4-5, and generally categorized in the publicly released
Report, co-authored by the Defendant USA-MA and DOJ DIVISION.
47. The Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA, requested the
production of documents, pursuant to the federal Housekeeping Act found at 5 U.S.C.
§ 301, and the prescribed DOJ regulations applicable to the request found at 28 C.F.R.
§ 16.21 et seq., a so-called Touhy [v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951),] request.
48. The Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, request for production or disclosure of documents,
in his official capacity as HDA, from then-USA-MA Lelling, in his official capacity as
lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA, and then-AAG Dreiband, in his official
capacity as lead attorney for the DOJ DIVISION, specifically sought, at pp.4-5:
a. A copy of all Springfield Police Department reports, including, but not limited to
incident reports, investigative reports, arrest reports, use-of-force reports, or
contents of a “prisoner injury file” (as described in the Report, at 7), determined
12 | P a g e
as examples where Narcotics Bureau officers falsified reports to disguise or hide
their use of force[;]”;
b. A copy of all Springfield Police Department reports, including, but not limited to
incident reports, investigative reports, arrest reports, use-of-force reports, or
as “…a pattern or practice …. [where] officers made false reports that were
inconsistent with other available evidence, including video and photographs….”,
and;
c. A copy of all photographs, or video/digital material determined as inconsistent
with any Springfield Police Department officers’ reports, including, but not
limited to incident reports, investigative reports, arrest reports, use-of-force
reports, or contents of a “prisoner injury file” (as described in the Report, at 7).
49. Between August 20, 2020 and September 14, 2020, then-USA-MA Lelling, in his official
capacity as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA, did not provide the Plaintiff,
Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA, with a response, either verbally or
in writing, to the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D, Gulluni’s, August 19th demand for the
production or disclosure of “false” or “falsified” SPD reports and attendant photographs
or video/digital images, more specifically described in the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D.
Gulluni’s August 19th letter, at pp. 4-5, and generally categorized in the publicly released
Report, co-authored by the Defendant USA-MA and DOJ DIVISION.
50. Between August 20, 2020 and September 14, 2020, then-AAG Dreiband, in his official
capacity as lead attorney for the DOJ DIVISION, did not provide the Plaintiff, Anthony
D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA, with a response, either verbally or in writing,
13 | P a g e
to the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gullini’s, August 19th demand for the production or
disclosure of “false” or “falsified” SPD reports and attendant photographs or
video/digital images, more specifically described in HDA Gulluni’s August 19th letter, at
pp. 4-5, and generally categorized in the publicly released Report, co-authored by the
Defendant USA-MA and DOJ.
51. On September 14, 2020, the Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as
HDA, wrote a second letter to then-USA-MA Lelling, again in his official capacity as
lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA. A copy of the letter is attached, and noted as
Exhibit D. The contents of the letter, in total, are incorporated herein.
52. On September 14, 2020, the Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as
HDA, wrote a second letter to then- AAG Dreiband, again in his official capacity as lead
attorney for the DOJ DIVISION. A copy of the letter is attached, and noted as Exhibit
E. The contents of the letter, in total, are incorporated herein.
53. The Plaintiff’s, Anthony D Gulluni’s, September 14th letter to then-USA-MA Lelling was
sent, by FedEx courier, and delivered to his principal address on September 15, 2020 at
12:08 am.
54. The Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, September 14th letter to Defendant AAG Dreiband
was sent by FedEx courier, and delivered to his principal address on September 15, 2020
at 10:18 am.
55. The Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, second letters to then-USA-MA Lelling, in his
official capacity as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA, and then-AAG Dreiband,
in his official capacity as lead attorney for the DOJ DIVISION, were identical in content,
and again requested of each the production or disclosure of “false” or “falsified” SPD
14 | P a g e
reports and attendant photographs or video/digital images, more specifically described in
the letter at pp. 4-5, and generally categorized in the publicly released Report, co-
authored by the Defendant USA-MA and the DOJ DIVISION.
56. The Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, September 14th letters, in his official capacity as
HDA, reminded the federal prosecutors that the information sought fell squarely within
the type of information federal prosecutors routinely seek, evaluate, and disclose
pursuant to the DOJ’s so-called Giglio Policy, appearing at United States Department of
Justice, Justice Manual, Tit. 9-5.100 (updated Jan. 2020) (Manual),
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-50000-issues-related-trials-andother-court-
proceedings[https//perma.cc/NKL2-YZ2J].
57. On October 29, 2020, then-USA-MA Lelling, in his official capacity as lead attorney for
the Defendant USA-MA, served a letter, dated October 21, 2020, upon the Plaintiff,
Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA, by electronic mail. Then-USA-MA
Lelling’s letter responded to the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, August 19th and
September 14th letters. A copy of the letter is attached, and noted as Exhibit F. The
contents of the letter, in total, are incorporated herein.
58. Then-USA-MA Lelling’s October 21st letter to the Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, notified
him that “[a]fter carefully considering [the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s] request …
and reviewing the relevant procedural and substantive law, [then-USA-MA Lelling]
determined that [the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s] requests [were] improper under
the applicable substantive and procedural requirements. Therefore, [then-USA-MA
Lelling would not] authorize the disclosure of the official information that [the Plaintiff,
Anthony D. Gulluni] requested”.
15 | P a g e
59. The stated grounds for the denial of the production or disclosure of all photographs, or
video/digital material determined as inconsistent with any SPD officers’ reports,
including, but not limited to incident reports, investigative reports, arrest reports, use-of-
force reports, or contents of a “prisoner injury file” (as described in the Report, at 7), as
requested in the August 19th and September 14th letters of the Plaintiff, Anthony D.
Gulluni, to then-USA-MA Lelling, in his official capacity as the lead attorney for the
Defendant USA-MA, were two-fold, and founded upon 28 C.F.R. § 16.26(a)(2) and 28
C.F.R. § 16.26 (b)(5): namely, (1) the requested information was privileged; and, (2) the
requested information belongs to the SPD.
60. Then-USA-MA Lelling claimed he based his decision to deny production of the
requested documents to the Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, upon two privileges. First,
then-USA-MA Lelling stated “the documents sought [were] subject to the work product
privilege because they reflect the thoughts and impressions of DOJ attorneys, paralegals
and investigators[,]” without an extraordinary justification for release. Then-USA-MA
Lelling wrote that, “[h]ere, there is no ‘extraordinary justification.’ As prosecutors we
are sympathetic to the need you expressed in your letter ‘to meet my constitutional,
statutory and ethical obligations’ regarding disclosure of the information about police
misconduct … however, the thoughts and impressions of the [Defendant USA-MA] and
DOJ employees contained in the Report do not amount to ‘factual findings and legal
conclusions binding on, or admissible in, any court.’” Second, then-USA-MA Lelling
stated “this Office [Defendant USA-MA] has determined that the documents sought are
subject to the law enforcement privilege because they would reveal investigative records
16 | P a g e
compiled in connection with an open and ongoing civil investigation … and would
interfere with these ongoing law enforcement proceedings.”
61. Then-USA-MA Lelling claimed these privileges, on behalf of the Defendant USA-MA
and then-AAG Dreiband and the DOJ DIVISION, even though the Plaintiff’s, Anthony
D. Gulluni’s, August 19th and September 14th letters did not request any documents from
the investigation that consisted of “… IIU files, training materials, or other internal,
confidential or privileged documents of the [SPD] provided to investigators, or incident
reports, investigative reports, arrest reports, use-of-force reports, or contents of a
“prisoner injury file” (as described in the Report, at 7) determined not to contain false or
falsified information, or statements, notes or recordings of investigators’ interviews with
[SPD] officers, City of Springfield officials or community members”, and “the disclosure
of any information concerning sensitive investigative techniques, current investigations,
classified information, informants or security programs such as the Federal Witness
Security Program.”
62. Then-USA-MA Lelling’s October 21st letter also claimed “[t]he requested documents
belong to and originated with the SPD” when denying production of the requested
documents to the Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni. USA-MA Lelling’s October 21st letter
stated, “SPD produced these documents to the [Defendant USA-MA] pursuant to a
confidentiality agreement as part of our civil pattern or practice investigation. Because
these documents are available from SPD – a department with which your office likely
works daily – they should not be sought from the [Defendant USA-MA].”
63. Then-USA-MA Lelling, in his capacity as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA,
informed the Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, that his October 21st letter was “the final
17 | P a g e
agency decision of the USAO in response to the [Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s]
Touhy request[,]” binding upon the Defendant USA-MA and DOJ DIVISION.
64. Prior to issuing his final agency decision, then-USA-MA Lelling, in his official capacity
as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA, did not discuss or otherwise negotiate the
terms of the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, Touhy requests, or any withdrawal
pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.24.
65. AAG Dreiband, in his official capacity for the DOJ DIVISION, never responded,
verbally or in writing, to the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, August 19th or September
14th letters. AAG Dreiband, in his official capacity for the DOJ DIVISION, has not
discussed or otherwise negotiated the terms of the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s,
Touhy requests, or any withdrawal pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.24.
66. The plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, September 14th letter notified then-AAG
Dreiband, in his capacity of the DOJ DIVISION, that a lack of response by September
30, 2020 would be considered a “final agency decision, as those terms are defined by
federal administrative and relative case law.”
67. The Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s September 14th letter notified then-AAG Dreiband,
in his official capacity as lead attorney for the DOJ DIVISION, that, without a further
response by September 30, 2020, then-AAG Dreiband and DOJ DIVISION’s final
grounds for withholding the production or disclosure of the demanded reports and
attendant photographs or video/digital material would be: (1) the requested false or
falsified reports were confidential and (2) available from the SPD; (3) the calculus for
exculpatory information was different for the Department of Justice; and, (4) the rules
for Brady material do not extend to the DOJ DIVISION,:.
18 | P a g e
68. On December 2, 2020, the Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA,
wrote a letter to Springfield Police Commissioner Cheryl Clapprood requesting the same
documents he had requested from federal investigators of the Defendant USA-MA and
DOJ DIVISION. A copy of the letter is attached, and noted as Exhibit G. The contents
of the letter, in total, are incorporated herein.
69. The Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, December 2nd letter, informed the SPD that his
request for these documents “reflects…the need for prosecutors to learn of potential
impeachment information regarding all the investigating agents and employees
participating in the cases they prosecute, so that they may consider whether the
information should be disclosed to defense counsel under the Brady and Giglio line of
cases.” In the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation, 485 Mass. 641, 660 (2020)”, and
that, “There [was] no other reasonable means available to [his] office to obtain the
production or disclosure of the ‘false’ or ‘falsified’ [SPD] reports and attendant
photographs or video/digital images, as cited in the July 8th Report.”
70. On December 10, 2020, Springfield City Solicitor Edward M. Pikula, responded, by
letter, that “the City of Springfield has not been provided any information from the
Department of Justice specifying any identifying information as to the case numbers,
names of specific officers or names of specific criminal defendants described in the
Report.” A copy of the letter is attached, and noted as Exhibit H. The contents of the
letter, in total, are incorporated herein.
71. Attorney Pikula’s December 10th letter confirmed the facts, as told to HDA First ADA
Fitzgerald by AUSAs Cumming and Volek during their August 6th telephone
conversation, see supra at paragraph 41, that the Defendant USA-MA has not advised
19 | P a g e
the SPD of which of the tens of thousands of reports it had provided to federal
investigators during their investigation were false or falsified, as found in the DOJ
Report.
72. Attorney Pikula’s December 10th letter also informed the District Attorney for Hampden
County that all of the materials supplied to federal investigators were available to be
reviewed by his office in a “reasonable format and on a reasonable schedule in a phased
production, similar to the process followed with the Department of Justice.”
73. On March 11, 2021, the Plaintiff, Anthony D, Gulluni, in his official capacity as HDA,
wrote a letter to Attorney Pikula, in his capacity as SPD’s legal counsel, and informed
the SPD, that, as district attorney, he could not, legally or practically, recreate a civil
investigation that was conducted by and through a federal statutory scheme; but that he
would designate office personnel to review the materials provided to the Defendant USA-
MA and DOJ DIVISION in its investigation. Such review was reported to consist of tens
of thousands of pages spanning six years. A copy of the letter is attached, and noted as
Exhibit I.
74. HDA First ADA Fitzgerald has attempted repeatedly, through Attorney Pikula, to
coordinate the procedural logistics of the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, in his
capacity as HDA, review of the requested materials. As of May 18, 2021, the SPD had
not provided any documents for review.
COUNT # 1
VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706
20 | P a g e
75. Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Hampden
County, repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation as contained in paragraphs #1
through #74, as if fully set forth herein.
76. With indifference to Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, constitutional, statutory and
ethical obligations as the primary prosecuting authority in Hampden County, Acting
USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell, as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA has
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed the production or disclosure of all SPD
reports, including, but not limited to incident reports, investigative reports, arrest reports,
use-of-force reports, or contents of a “prisoner injury file” (as described in the Report,
at 7), determined as examples where SPD Narcotics Bureau officers falsified reports to
disguise or hide their use of force, as requested in the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s,
July 20th oral request of HDA First ADA Fitzgerald and August 19th and September 14th
letters to then USA-MA Andrew E. Lelling.
USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell, as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA, has
unlawfully withheld the production or disclosure of all SPD reports, including, but not
limited to incident reports, investigative reports, arrest reports, use-of-force reports, or
contents of a “prisoner injury file” (as described in the Report, at 7), determined as “…a
pattern or practice …. [where] officers made false reports that were inconsistent with
other available evidence, including video and photographs….”, as requested in the
Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, July 20th oral request of HDA First ADA Fitzgerald
and August 19th and September 14th letters to then USA-MA Andrew E. Lelling.
21 | P a g e
USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell, as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA, has
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed the production or disclosure of all
photographs, or video/digital material determined as inconsistent with any SPD officers’
reports, including, but not limited to incident reports, investigative reports, arrest reports,
use-of-force reports, or contents of a “prisoner injury file” (as described in the Report, at
7). as requested in the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, July 20th oral request of HDA
First ADA Fitzgerald and August 19th and September 14th letters to then USA-MA
Andrew E. Lelling.
USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell, as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA and DOJ
DIVISION, has violated 28 C.F.R. §16.24, by then-USA-MA Lelling and then-AAG
Dreiband failing to discuss or otherwise negotiate the terms of the Plaintiff’s, Anthony
D. Gulluni’s, request for the production or disclosure of “false” or “falsified” Springfield
Police Department reports and attendant photographs or video/digital images generally
categorized in the publicly released Department of Justice Report, dated July 8, 2020,
entitled Investigation of the Springfield, Massachusetts Police Department’s Narcotics
Bureau (“Report”), co-authored by the United States Department of Justice’s Civil Rights
Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, the
prescribed Department of Justice Touhy-regulations found at 28 C.F.R. § 16.21 et. seq.,
prior to the Defendant USA-MA issuing its final agency decision. Failure to engage in
22 | P a g e
such discussions or negotiations, as contemplated by 28 C.F.R. § 16.24, is arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.
USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell, as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA and DOJ
DIVISION, has violated DOJ28 C.F.R. § 16.24, by then-USA-MA Lelling’s and then-
AAG Dreiband’s failure to produce or disclose any of the “false” or “falsified”
Springfield Police Department reports and attendant photographs or video/digital images
generally categorized in the publicly released Department of Justice Report, dated July
8, 2020, entitled Investigation of the Springfield, Massachusetts Police Department’s
Narcotics Bureau (“Report”), co-authored by the United States Department of Justice’s
Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of
Massachusetts, contrary to the practice and policy of information federal prosecutors
routinely seek, evaluate, and disclose pursuant to the United States Department of
Justice’s so-called Giglio Policy, appearing at United States Department of Justice,
Justice Manual, Tit. 9-5.100 (updated Jan. 2020) (Manual),
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-50000-issues-related-trials-andother-court-
proceedings[https//perma.cc/NKL2-YZ2J]. Failure to disclose such information, as
contemplated by the so-called Giglio Policy, is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, and not in accordance with law.
81. The grounds for the denial of the production or disclosure of all SPD reports, including,
but not limited to incident reports, investigative reports, arrest reports, use-of-force
reports, or contents of a “prisoner injury file” (as described in the Report, at 7),
23 | P a g e
determined as examples where SPD Narcotics Bureau officers falsified reports to
letters to then-USA-MA Lelling, founded upon 28 C.F.R. § 16.26(a)(2) and 28 C.F.R.
§ 16.26 (b)(5), namely: (1) the requested information is privileged by the work product
privilege and law enforcement privilege; and, (2) the requested information belongs to
the SPD, was subject to a confidentiality agreement, and should be obtained solely from
the SPD, by Acting USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell, as lead attorney for the Defendant
USA-MA, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with
law.
determined as “…a pattern or practice …. [where] officers made false reports that were
inconsistent with other available evidence, including video and photographs…,” as
requested in the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, July 20th oral request of HDA First
ADA Fitzgerald and August 19th and September 14th letters to then-USA-MA Lelling,
founded upon 28 C.F.R. § 16.26(a)(2) and 28 C.F.R. § 16.26 (b)(5), namely: (1) the
requested information is privileged by the work product privilege and the law
enforcement privilege; and, (2) the requested information belonged to the SPD, was
subject to a confidentiality agreement, and should be obtained solely from the SPD, by
Acting USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell, as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA,
are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.
24 | P a g e
83. The grounds for the denial of the production or disclosure of all photographs, or
Gulluini, to then-USA-MA Lelling, founded upon 28 C.F.R. § 16.26(a)(2) and 28 C.F.R.
§ 16.26 (b)(5), namely: (1) the requested information is privileged by the work product
privilege and the law enforcement privilege; and, (2) the requested information belonged
to the SPD, was subject to a confidentiality agreement, and should be obtained solely
from the SPD, by Acting USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell, as lead attorney for the
Defendant USA-MA, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in
accordance with law.
determined as examples where SPD Narcotics Bureau officers falsified reports to
letters to then-AAG Drieband, as lead attorney for the DOJ DIVISION; namely: (1) the
requested false or falsified reports were confidential and (2) available from the SPD; (3)
the calculus for exculpatory information was different for the Department of Justice; and,
(4) the rules for Brady material do not extend to the DOJ, as incorporated in the final
agency decision of the Defendant USA-MA, by Acting USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell,
25 | P a g e
as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion and not in accordance with law.
determined as “…a pattern or practice …. [where] officers made false reports that were
inconsistent with other available evidence, including video and photographs….”, as
requested in the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s, July 20th oral request of HDA First
ADA Fitzgerald and August 19th and September 14th letters to then-AAG Dreiband, as
lead attorney for the DOJ DIVISION, namely: (1) the requested false or falsified reports
were confidential and (2) available from the SPD; (3) the calculus for exculpatory
information was different for the Department of Justice; and, (4) the rules for Brady
material do not extend to the DOJ DIVISION, as incorporated in the final agency
decision of the Defendant USA-MA, by Acting USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell, as lead
attorney for the Defendant USA-MA, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and
not in accordance with law.
86. The grounds for the denial of the production or disclosure of all photographs, or
Gulluini, to then-AAG Dreiband, namely: (1) the false or falsified reports were
confidential and (2) available from the SPD; (3) the calculus for exculpatory information
26 | P a g e
was different for the Department of Justice; and, (4) the rules for Brady material do not
extend to the DOJ DIVISION, as incorporated in the final agency decision of the
Defendant USA-MA, by Acting USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell, as lead attorney for the
Defendant USA-MA, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in
accordance with law.
V. RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni, in his official capacity as District Attorney
for Hampden County (Commonwealth of Massachusetts), repeats and re-alleges each and every
allegation as contained in paragraphs #1 through #86, as if fully set forth herein, and requests this
Honorable Court enter judgment against Acting USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell, as lead attorney
for the Defendant USA-MA, on all counts of this complaint, and
a) Declare unlawful and set aside the final agency decision on behalf of then-USA-MA
Andrew E. Lelling, as lead attorney for the Defendant US-MA that denied, delayed
production, or failed to disclose the “false” or “falsified” SPD reports and attendant
photographs or video/digital images, more specifically described in the Plaintiff’s,
Anthony D. Gulluni’s, July 20th oral request of HDA First ADA Fitzgerald, and August
19th and September 14th letters to then-USA-MA Lelling, as lead attorney for the
Defendant USA-MA and then-AAG Dreiband, as lead attorney for the DOJ DIVISION,
at pp. 4-5, and generally categorized in the publicly released Department of Justice
Report, dated July 8, 2020, entitled Investigation of the Springfield, Massachusetts
Police Department’s Narcotics Bureau [“Report”], co-authored by the Defendant USA-
MA and DOJ DIVISION.
27 | P a g e
b) Declare that Acting USA-MA Nathaniel R. Mendell’s, as lead attorney for the
Defendant USA-MA’s, denial or delayed production or disclosure of the “false” or
“falsified” SPD reports and attendant photographs or video/digital images, more
specifically described in the Plaintiff’s, Anthony D. Gulluni’s , July 20th oral request
of HDA First ADA Fitzgerald, and August 19th and September 14th letters to then-
USA-MA Lelling, in his capacity as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA and
then-AAG Dreiband, in his capacity as lead attorney for the DOJ DIVISION, at pp. 4-
5, and generally categorized in the publicly released Department of Justice Report,
dated July 8, 2020, entitled Investigation of the Springfield, Massachusetts Police
Department’s Narcotics Bureau [“Report”], co-authored by the Defendant USA-MA
and DOJ DIVISION were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not otherwise
in accordance with law; and
c) Compel the production of the following materials to the Plaintiff, Anthony D. Gulluni,
in his capacity as HDA, as requested in the July 20th oral request of HDA First ADA
Fitzgerald, and August 19th and September 14th letters to then-USA-MA Lelling, in his
capacity as lead attorney for the Defendant USA-MA and then-AAG Dreiband, in his
capacity as lead attorney for the DOJ DIVISION, at pp. 4-5:
(1) A copy of all Springfield Police Department reports, including, but not limited
to incident reports, investigative reports, arrest reports, use-of-force reports, or
as examples where Narcotics Bureau officers falsified reports to disguise or
hide their use of force[;]”;
28 | P a g e
(2) A copy of all Springfield Police Department reports, including, but not limited
to incident reports, investigative reports, arrest reports, use-of-force reports, or
as “…a pattern or practice …. [where] officers made false reports that were
inconsistent with other available evidence, including video and photographs….”,
and;
(3) A copy of all photographs, or video/digital material determined as inconsistent
with any Springfield Police Department officers’ reports, including, but not
limited to incident reports, investigative reports, arrest reports, use-of-force
reports, or contents of a “prisoner injury file” (as described in the Report, at 7).
VI. CERTIFICATION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my
knowledge, information, and belief that this complaint: (1) is not being presented for an improper
purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) is supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or
reversing existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule
11.
29 | P a g e
Respectfully submitted,
Date: May 18, 2021
/s/ Anthony D. Gulluni

Anthony D. Gulluni
District Attorney for Hampden County
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse
50 State Street, 3rd Floor
Springfield, MA. 01102
(413) 505-5901
[email protected]
BBO # 674246
30 | P a g e

Hampden DA Suit Against US Attorney and DOJ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hampden DA Suit Against US Attorney and DOJ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:21-cv-30058 Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 1 of 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), at 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, from the Defendant’s

wrongful withholding of “false” or “falsified” Springfield Police Department reports and

attendant photographs or video/digital images, as named in the publicly released Department

Police Department’s Narcotics Bureau” [“Report”], co-authored by the United States

District of Massachusetts, after Plaintiff’s demand to the Defendant for production or

Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“HDA”). HDA is a state agency of the Commonwealth

Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse, 50 State Street, 3rd Floor, Springfield, Massachusetts

in his official capacity.

Office for the District of Massachusetts (“USA-MA”), is a governmental agency of the

United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The USA-MA is led by an appointed

Boston, Massachusetts 02210, with a telephone number of (617) 748-3100. Acting

brought pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.

4. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question).

District of Massachusetts, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), as the Plaintiff principally

resides in Springfield, Massachusetts in Hampden County, geographically located in the

Defendant is an agency of the United States, or an officer or employee of the United

States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

District (HDA) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The HDA is the primary

of Massachusetts. M.G.L. c. 12, §§ 12-13, 27; G.L. c. 218, § 27A.

2. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the district attorney, in his official capacity, is

allocating limited resources to maximize public protection.” Commonwealth v. Gordon,

of Juvenile Court Dep’t, 432 Mass. 693, 699 (2000).

in determining whether to prosecute an individual, Commonwealth v. Ware, 482 Mass.

U.S. 78, 88-89 (1935).

Departments by Fiscal Year, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/trial-court-statistical-

reports-and-dashboards#statistics-2014-2020-. Each one of those cases represented an

a state trial court over that five-year period.

of his duties, including the constitutional and statutory provisions related to a

prosecutor’s discovery obligations. In the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation, 485

Commonwealth, including the applicable rules of criminal procedure related to a

Massachusetts Bar, and is subject to the rules of professional responsibility, including,

discovery obligations. Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor,

3.8 (d), (g), (i), and (j) and Comment 1.

District Attorneys, appointed by him, to assist in the performance of his duties.

duties, including the constitutional and statutory provisions related to a prosecutor’s

applicable rules of criminal procedure related to a prosecutor’s discovery obligations.

Mass. R. Crim. P. 14, as amended 444 Mass. 1518 (2005).

subject to the rules of professional responsibility, including, where appropriate,

undertaking procedural and remedial measures in the exercise of their discovery

(i), and (j) and Comment 1.

14. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the possession, custody or control of potentially

prosecutor’s direction and control, or persons who have participated in investigating or

to information in their possession or in possession of persons subject to their control).

City of Springfield, Massachusetts, a city geographically located in Hampden County, in

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

or investigatory reports to satisfy probable cause determinations before a magistrate or

276, § 58A(4); G.L. c. 276, § 1.

the prosecutor’s discovery obligations to an individual charged with a crime.

at pretrial, trial, and post-conviction evidentiary hearings of criminally charged

individuals in Hampden County Superior Court, Springfield District Court, and

Springfield Juvenile Court.

Department of Justice – Civil Rights Division [DOJ DIVISION] entitled “Investigation

of the Springfield, Massachusetts Police Department’s Narcotics Bureau [“Report”]. A

total, are incorporated herein.

Division (“DOJ DIVISION”) conducted a comprehensive review of 114,000 pages of

Springfield Police Department documents, including an unspecified number of “incident

reports” and “investigative reports.”

Narcotics Bureau from 2013-2018.

to disguise or hide their use of force.”

Bureau officers engage[d] in a pattern or practice of excessive force in violation of the