Joinder in Massachusetts Criminal Law: Lessons from Commonwealth v. Riley & Rogers
Introduction: Why Joinder Matters in Massachusetts Criminal Cases
In Massachusetts criminal courts, one of the most important — and often overlooked — procedural battles involves joinder. Joinder determines whether multiple charges, or even multiple defendants, will be tried together in front of a single jury. For prosecutors, joinder is often a powerful tool to present a sweeping narrative of guilt. For defense lawyers, joinder can be a dangerous source of prejudicial spillover that undermines a fair trial.
The recent Superior Court decision in Commonwealth v. Riley & Rogers highlights how joinder plays out in practice. In that case, two defendants faced a combination of sexual assault charges, strangulation allegations, and related offenses. The Commonwealth sought to try them together on all counts. The defense objected, arguing that combining such charges risked unfair prejudice. The judge ultimately split the difference, allowing joinder on some counts while severing others.
This case illustrates the delicate balance courts must strike under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 9, which governs joinder and severance. For both criminal defense lawyers and individuals accused of serious crimes, understanding this body of law is essential.
The Legal Framework: Rule 9 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure
Mass. R. Crim. P. 9 is the foundation of joinder law in Massachusetts. It has two main parts:
Joinder of Offenses:
Under Rule 9(a)(1), offenses may be joined if they are:
(a) “of the same or similar character,”
(b) “based on the same conduct,” or
(c) “otherwise connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.”
The rule is written broadly, and courts generally permit joinder if there is any reasonable relationship between charges.
Joinder of Defendants:
Rule 9(b) allows two or more defendants to be tried together if they are alleged to have “participated in the same criminal conduct or series of criminal episodes.”
The presumption is in favor of joint trials, especially when the charges arise out of the same alleged event.
Severance to Avoid Prejudice:
Rule 9(d)(1) provides the critical safety valve: even if joinder is technically permissible, the judge must sever counts or defendants if a joint trial would be prejudicial to the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Prejudice can arise in many ways — antagonistic defenses, evidence admissible against one defendant but not the other, or charges of a highly inflammatory nature being tried alongside more routine allegations.
The Policy Behind Joinder: Efficiency vs. Fairness
The Commonwealth often pushes for joinder because it conserves judicial resources. Instead of calling the same witnesses multiple times in different trials, the prosecution can present everything at once. Courts also prefer to avoid inconsistent verdicts.
But for defendants, the efficiency of joinder comes at a steep cost. Jurors may:
Conflate evidence across charges.
Infer a “criminal propensity” based on multiple allegations.
Struggle to compartmentalize different fact patterns, particularly when one set of charges is more serious or inflammatory than another.
The danger is that a jury’s verdict will rest not on the strength of the Commonwealth’s proof, but on the cumulative weight of allegations.
Commonwealth v. Riley & Rogers: The Joinder Fight in Action
In Riley & Rogers, the defendants were charged with multiple offenses, including strangulation and sexual assault. The Commonwealth argued that the charges should be tried together because they were connected in time and circumstances, involving overlapping witnesses and alleged conduct.
The defense countered that trying all charges together would be unfairly prejudicial. Sexual assault allegations carry unique emotional weight with jurors. Combining those counts with strangulation allegations — which themselves suggest violence and danger — risked a jury convicting based on a generalized sense of wrongdoing rather than the specific proof required for each count.
The Superior Court judge issued a split ruling:
Some charges were joined, particularly those with overlapping facts and witnesses.
Other charges, particularly the sexual assault counts, were severed to ensure a fair trial.
This outcome underscores the central principle of joinder law in Massachusetts: while efficiency is important, fairness must prevail when prejudice is too high.
Massachusetts Case Law on Joinder and Severance
Several key appellate cases guide how judges analyze joinder disputes:
Commonwealth v. Moran, 387 Mass. 644 (1982)
Established that joinder is generally favored but must give way where prejudice outweighs efficiency.
Emphasized the risk of “spillover prejudice” when unrelated or highly inflammatory charges are combined.
Commonwealth v. Gallison, 383 Mass. 659 (1981)
The court found prejudice where evidence in support of one charge would not have been admissible in a separate trial on the other charge.
Commonwealth v. Blow, 362 Mass. 196 (1972)
Highlighted that joinder should not be permitted when it effectively forces a defendant to fight two unrelated battles before the same jury.
Commonwealth v. Pillai, 445 Mass. 175 (2005)
Affirmed that joinder is appropriate when offenses are part of a single scheme or plan, but judges must still weigh Rule 9(d) prejudice arguments.
Commonwealth v. Richards, 384 Mass. 396 (1981)
Stressed the importance of limiting instructions, but acknowledged that jurors may not always be able to keep evidence separate.
Types of Prejudice That Support Severance
Defense lawyers in Massachusetts typically argue for severance based on several recurring forms of prejudice:
Antagonistic Defenses: When co-defendants blame each other, joinder may deprive each of a fair trial.
Bruton Issues: Under Bruton v. United States, a defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights may be violated if a co-defendant’s confession implicates him but the co-defendant does not testify.
Inflammatory Charges: Sex crimes, child-related offenses, or violent acts may so inflame a jury that they taint unrelated charges.
Evidentiary Spillover: Jurors may improperly use evidence admissible on one count against a defendant on another count.
Strategic Conflicts: One defendant may want to testify while another does not, creating tactical prejudice in a joint trial.
Defense Strategies for Fighting Joinder
For Massachusetts defense attorneys, challenging joinder requires a mix of procedural skill and persuasive advocacy. Key strategies include:
File a Motion to Sever Early
Move under Rule 9(d) as soon as possible. Articulate exactly how joinder will prejudice your client.
Detail the Inflammatory Nature of Certain Charges
Emphasize when sexual assault or other emotionally charged counts would overwhelm the jury’s ability to be fair on less serious allegations.
Highlight Inadmissible Evidence Concerns
Argue that evidence admissible against one defendant (or for one charge) would not be admissible in a separate trial.
Use Expert Affidavits if Helpful
In some cases, defense counsel can bolster prejudice arguments with expert testimony on juror psychology or the limits of compartmentalization.
Request Limiting Instructions — But Don’t Rely on Them
Even if severance is denied, request strong limiting instructions. Preserve appellate issues by making clear the prejudice cannot be cured by instructions alone.
Why Joinder Battles Matter to Clients
For individuals accused of serious crimes in Massachusetts, the outcome of a joinder motion can determine the trajectory of the case. A client facing three separate trials has three chances for acquittal — and the Commonwealth must prove each beyond a reasonable doubt. But when those charges are bundled together, the risk is that a jury’s collective sense of suspicion will swamp the presumption of innocence.
Moreover, in cases with multiple defendants, one person may be swept along by the evidence against another. Joinder fights are thus central to protecting the constitutional right to an individualized determination of guilt or innocence.
Takeaways from Riley & Rogers
The Riley & Rogers Superior Court decision demonstrates that Massachusetts judges do not treat joinder as an automatic prosecution win. Instead, courts are willing to sever highly prejudicial counts — especially when sex offenses are mixed with other violent crimes — to protect fairness.
For defense lawyers, the case is a reminder to aggressively litigate joinder issues, develop detailed records of prejudice, and preserve appellate rights. For clients, it highlights why choosing a lawyer with experience in these procedural battles is critical.
Conclusion: The Role of a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer
Joinder is more than a technical rule of procedure. It is a frontline battle that can decide whether a trial is fair or fatally stacked against the accused. The Superior Court in Riley & Rogers showed that Massachusetts judges recognize this danger, and will sever charges where necessary.
But it is up to skilled defense counsel to identify those dangers, argue them persuasively, and protect their clients’ rights.
Call to Action
If you or a loved one are facing serious criminal charges in Boston, Brockton, or anywhere in Massachusetts, you need a defense lawyer who understands not just the facts, but the procedural battles that can make or break your case. From motions to sever, to suppression hearings, to trial advocacy — our team fights every step of the way to ensure your rights are protected.
Contact us today for a confidential consultation. Don’t let the Commonwealth stack the deck against you through unfair joinder. Put an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer in your corner.