When Acquittals Are Sealed: The SJC Clarifies Defendants’ Rights in Mark Gravito v. Commonwealth (2025)
On November 25, 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court issued an important decision in Mark Gravito v. Commonwealth, SJC-13705, resolving a question that had lingered since the Court revived Massachusetts’ automatic sealing statute in Commonwealth v. J.F., 491 Mass. 824 (2023). In a unanimous opinion by Justice Wendlandt, the SJC held that a defendant has the right to access his own sealed court records—even when some counts in the case resulted in acquittals and others in convictions.
This ruling restores a basic principle that had become obscured by recent procedural changes: sealing protects a defendant from the public, not from his own lawyer.
Background: Mixed Verdicts, Automatic Sealing, and a Barrier to Appellate Review
Massachusetts’ automatic sealing statute, G.L. c. 276, § 100C (first paragraph), provides that when a defendant is found not guilty, the court must seal the records of those proceedings, unless the defendant affirmatively opts out within one month.
After J.F. restored the statute’s enforceability in 2023, the Trial Court issued Transmittal No. 24-4 directing clerks to begin sealing not-guilty records and—critically—advising that once sealed, the defendant himself would no longer have access to them.
That procedure collided head-on with the facts of this case.
The Gravito Case
Mark Gravito was tried in 2023 on six child-sexual-assault indictments. The jury acquitted him of five and convicted him of one. He appealed the conviction.
While the appeal was pending, the Trial Court—following Transmittal No. 24-4—sealed the records of the five acquitted counts. Gravito’s newly appointed appellate counsel attempted to obtain the complete trial record and discovered that ten docket entries had been sealed and were unavailable for review.
The Superior Court judge allowed counsel to view the records, under supervision, but forbade making copies. Counsel could take handwritten notes only.
Recognizing that meaningful appellate review requires a full record—not supervised glimpses—the defendant petitioned the SJC under G.L. c. 211, § 3.
The case was reserved and reported to the full court.
The Question Before the SJC
Does the automatic sealing statute prevent a defendant and his appellate counsel from accessing the defendant’s own sealed court records in a mixed-verdict case?
If so, defendants would face a stark and untenable choice:
Either preserve the privacy benefit of sealing their acquittals,
or forfeit that privacy so their lawyer can review the record and mount an effective appeal on the convictions.
The SJC rejected that dilemma outright.
The SJC’s Holding: Defendants Can Access Their Own Sealed Records
The Court held unequivocally:
G.L. c. 276, § 100C permits a defendant to access his own sealed records, and permits his appellate counsel to do the same.
Why? Several core reasons:
1. The statute was intended to protect defendants—not disable them.
The Legislature meant to prevent the public from accessing acquittal records, so defendants would not face lasting stigma or collateral consequences. Nothing in the statute suggests an intent to deprive defendants of access to their own case materials.
2. The CORI Act already lets individuals access their own sealed CORI.
G.L. c. 6, § 175 provides that a person may obtain “all criminal offender record information,” including sealed records, about themselves. The SJC reasoned that the automatic sealing statute should be harmonized with this CORI framework—not interpreted to contradict it.
3. Sealing historically restricts public access, not personal access.
The Court examined the ordinary meaning of “seal”—to prevent outside inspection. That meaning does not imply that a defendant’s own lawyer is barred from reviewing the materials necessary to prosecute an appeal.
4. The opt-out provision cannot be a “forced waiver of appellate rights.”
The Commonwealth had argued that defendants must choose: opt out of sealing to allow access, or keep the records private and accept limited appellate review. The SJC rejected that as irreconcilable with both legislative intent and constitutional principles:
The Legislature did not intend to make defendants choose between sealing their acquittals and receiving the effective assistance of appellate counsel.
5. Trial Court Transmittal No. 24-4 was invalid to the extent it suggested otherwise.
The SJC expressly declared the Transmittal’s limitation on defendant access invalid, as it contradicted statutory authority and violated separation-of-powers principles.
What This Decision Means for Defendants and Appellate Lawyers
1. Defendants do not lose access to their acquittal records when they are sealed.
Even when sealing occurs automatically, the defendant and counsel retain full access—including the ability to obtain copies.
2. Appellate counsel must receive the whole record—sealed portions included.
Effective appellate advocacy requires review of every ruling, objection, sidebar, and piece of evidence. Gravito ensures that sealing cannot create gaps in the appellate record.
3. Mixed-verdict cases are treated sensibly.
Defendants often appeal the conviction while relying on the acquittals to contextualize evidentiary issues, improper joinder, or prejudice. Access is necessary, not optional.
4. The ruling protects both privacy and due process.
The Court struck a balance that honors the Legislature’s intent to shield acquitted individuals from reputational harm without compromising their appellate rights.
Why This Case Matters for Practitioners
If you handle appeals:
You now have firm authority to demand complete access to sealed acquittal records.
If you handle trials:
Advise clients that opting out of sealing is no longer necessary to preserve appellate review.
If you represent clients on collateral consequences issues:
Remember that sealing is mandatory, automatic, and protective—and Gravito ensures it does not come at the cost of transparency between attorney and client.
Conclusion
Mark Gravito v. Commonwealth is a clarifying and defendant-protective decision. It reinforces the principle that automatic sealing bars public access, not a defendant’s access, and ensures that appellate rights survive the sealing process intact.
For defendants navigating the aftermath of a mixed verdict, this ruling restores common sense: they should not have to sacrifice their privacy to exercise their constitutional right to an effective appeal.