SJC Clarifies Reciprocal Psychiatric Exams in Resentencing Cases: What Commonwealth v. Berry Means for Massachusetts Defendants
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s recent decision in Jermaine Berry v. Commonwealth (SJC-13789, decided March 12, 2026) addresses a narrow but critically important issue in postconviction practice: when a defendant seeks resentencing and relies on a psychological expert, can the Commonwealth compel its own psychiatric examination?
The Court’s answer—yes, in limited circumstances—has significant implications for defense strategy, expert use, and the evolving landscape of resentencing under Rule 30.
This decision sits at the intersection of three powerful legal developments:
The expansion of constitutional protections for emerging adults
The increasing importance of mitigation evidence at resentencing
The role of expert testimony in shaping sentencing outcomes
For criminal defense attorneys—and for individuals seeking relief from lengthy sentences—Berry provides both guidance and caution.
Background: The Rise of Emerging Adult Sentencing Challenges
To understand Berry, you have to understand the broader constitutional shift underway in Massachusetts sentencing law.
Over the past decade, the SJC has steadily expanded protections for young offenders. Beginning with Diatchenko, the Court held that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole. Then, in Commonwealth v. Mattis, the Court extended similar protections to “emerging adults”—individuals aged 18 to 20 at the time of the offense.
That shift reflects a growing recognition that brain development, impulse control, and susceptibility to influence do not abruptly change at age 18.
As a result, emerging adults convicted of even the most serious crimes—first-degree murder—must be given a meaningful opportunity for parole.
This creates a powerful benchmark.
If someone convicted of murder must be eligible for parole after a certain period, what happens when someone convicted of lesser, non-homicide offenses faces a longer parole eligibility date?
That’s where cases like Berry come in.
The Defendant’s Claim: A Disproportionate Sentence
Jermaine Berry was convicted of multiple serious offenses committed when he was 20 years old. He received a sentence requiring at least 31 years before parole eligibility.
Under current law, that’s a problem.
If Berry had been convicted of first-degree murder as an emerging adult, he would have been eligible for parole after approximately 15 years. Instead, for non-murder offenses, he faced more than double that time.
That disparity triggered a constitutional challenge under Article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which prohibits cruel or unusual punishment.
The SJC reaffirmed an important principle:
When an emerging adult’s sentence for non-murder offenses exceeds the parole eligibility of someone convicted of murder, the sentence is presumptively disproportionate.
That alone is a major takeaway.
It means defendants like Berry are entitled to resentencing proceedings—often referred to as “Miller hearings”—where the court must consider:
Youth and immaturity
Background and upbringing
Mental health
Capacity for rehabilitation
Conduct while incarcerated
And that is where expert testimony becomes critical.
The Defense Strategy: Psychological Evidence of Rehabilitation
In preparing for resentencing, Berry retained a forensic psychologist who conducted a personal evaluation and issued a report.
That report addressed:
His mental health history
His development from childhood through incarceration
His risk of future violence
His rehabilitation
The expert concluded that Berry posed a low risk and had been rehabilitated.
This is standard—and often essential—in resentencing cases. Judges are asked to assess not just the past, but the present and future. Expert opinions can carry enormous weight in that analysis.
But by introducing that kind of evidence, Berry triggered the central issue in the case.
The Commonwealth’s Response: A Reciprocal Examination
After receiving the defense expert’s report, the Commonwealth moved for an order requiring Berry to submit to its own psychiatric examination.
The argument was straightforward:
If the defense is going to present expert testimony based on a personal clinical evaluation, the Commonwealth should be allowed to do the same.
The trial judge agreed and authorized the examination.
Berry challenged that ruling, arguing that:
Rule 30 (postconviction relief) does not authorize compelled psychiatric exams
The Commonwealth was overreaching
The order was improper in a resentencing context
The case ultimately reached the SJC.
The SJC’s Holding: Limited Reciprocity Is Permissible
The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and held that:
When a defendant relies on expert opinion derived from a personal psychological examination in a resentencing proceeding, a judge may permit a limited, reciprocal psychiatric examination by the Commonwealth.
This is not a blanket rule. The Court emphasized that such examinations are:
Not automatic
Not available as of right
Subject to judicial discretion
Limited in scope
But they are permissible when fairness and accurate fact-finding require them.
Why the Court Reached This Conclusion
The Court’s reasoning rests on a few key principles.
1. Rule 30 Allows Flexible Discovery
Postconviction discovery under Rule 30 is not limited to documents. It can include other forms of evidence when appropriate.
The Court emphasized that discovery is designed to ensure that decisions are based on complete and reliable information—not one-sided presentations.
2. Expert Testimony Must Be Testable
The Court recognized a practical reality:
Psychological opinions based on personal interviews cannot always be meaningfully challenged through cross-examination alone.
Without a competing evaluation, the Commonwealth would be at a disadvantage—and the judge would hear only one side of a highly subjective issue.
3. Fairness Requires Reciprocity
The Court framed the issue as one of fairness, not symmetry for its own sake.
If a defendant introduces expert evidence grounded in personal examination, fairness may require giving the Commonwealth a comparable opportunity.
Otherwise, the fact-finding process becomes distorted.
A Critical Limitation: This Is Not Automatic
The SJC was careful to limit its holding.
A compelled psychiatric exam is not appropriate in every resentencing case.
The Court made clear that such an order is justified only when:
The defense expert’s opinion is based substantially on personal interviews
The defendant’s mental condition or rehabilitation is central to the claim
The evidence cannot be adequately tested through other means
This is a narrow ruling, but an important one.
The Role of Rule 14.4: Borrowing Procedures
Interestingly, the trial judge relied in part on Rule 14.4—the rule governing reciprocal psychiatric exams at the pretrial stage.
Berry argued that this rule should not apply to postconviction proceedings.
The SJC rejected that argument.
While Rule 14.4 does not directly control resentencing, the Court held that judges may look to it for guidance when crafting procedures under Rule 30.
This reflects a broader principle: courts have inherent authority to shape procedures to ensure fairness, even when the rules are not explicit.
What This Means for Defense Attorneys
For defense counsel, Berry is a double-edged sword.
Strategic Benefit: Expanded Resentencing Opportunities
The case reinforces that emerging adults with disproportionately long sentences have a strong path to resentencing.
That is a powerful tool.
Strategic Risk: Opening the Door to Examination
But it also creates a risk.
If you present a psychological expert based on a personal evaluation, you may:
Waive control over the narrative
Expose your client to a Commonwealth expert
Introduce competing opinions that undermine your case
That means defense attorneys must think carefully about how to present mitigation evidence.
Practical Defense Considerations
1. Evaluate the Need for a Personal Examination
Not every case requires a full clinical interview.
In some situations, a records-based expert opinion may avoid triggering reciprocal examination.
2. Prepare the Client Thoroughly
If an examination is ordered, preparation is critical.
Clients must understand:
The purpose of the exam
The risks of inconsistent statements
The importance of clarity and honesty
3. Seek Protective Orders
The Court emphasized that such examinations must be limited.
Defense counsel should push for restrictions on:
Scope of questioning
Use of statements
Dissemination of the report
4. Anticipate Competing Experts
Once the Commonwealth conducts an exam, the case becomes a battle of experts.
That requires:
Careful selection of your own expert
Anticipation of rebuttal opinions
Strong cross-examination strategy
Broader Implications: The Future of Resentencing Litigation
Berry reflects a broader shift in Massachusetts criminal law.
Resentencing is no longer a narrow procedural mechanism—it is a substantive opportunity to revisit punishment in light of evolving constitutional standards.
But with that opportunity comes increased complexity.
Courts are balancing:
The rights of defendants
The need for accurate fact-finding
The integrity of the adversarial process
And expert testimony is at the center of that balance.
Key Takeaways
Emerging adults have strong constitutional protections against disproportionate sentences
Resentencing proceedings can involve extensive mitigation evidence, including expert testimony
When a defendant relies on a personal psychological evaluation, the Commonwealth may be allowed a reciprocal exam
Such examinations are limited, discretionary, and subject to safeguards
Defense strategy must account for both the benefits and risks of introducing expert evidence
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. Can the Commonwealth always force a psychiatric exam in resentencing cases?
No. The SJC made clear that this is not automatic. A court may allow it only when the defendant relies on expert testimony based on a personal evaluation and fairness requires a reciprocal opportunity.
2. Does this decision apply to all postconviction cases?
Not necessarily. The ruling is focused on resentencing proceedings under Rule 30 where mental health and rehabilitation are central issues.
3. What is an “emerging adult” under Massachusetts law?
An emerging adult is someone who was 18, 19, or 20 years old at the time of the offense. Courts now recognize that individuals in this age group have developmental characteristics that affect culpability and sentencing.
4. Why does expert testimony matter so much in resentencing?
Judges must evaluate a defendant’s rehabilitation, risk, and personal development. Psychological experts provide structured, clinical insights that go beyond the record of conviction.
5. Should defendants avoid using psychological experts to prevent reciprocal exams?
Not necessarily. Expert testimony can be extremely valuable. But defense counsel must weigh the benefits against the risk of opening the door to a Commonwealth evaluation.
Final Thoughts
Commonwealth v. Berry is a nuanced but important decision that clarifies the rules of engagement in resentencing litigation.
It confirms that defendants have powerful tools to challenge disproportionate sentences—but it also reinforces that those tools come with consequences.
In the end, the case underscores a simple truth:
When you put your client’s mental condition at issue, you invite scrutiny.
And in Massachusetts, that scrutiny may now include a court-ordered examination by the Commonwealth.
For defense attorneys, the message is clear: proceed strategically, prepare thoroughly, and never underestimate the impact of expert evidence—on both sides of the courtroom.