Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019)

Citation: Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019)
Parent Document: Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2019-04-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7178223/adjartey-v-cent-div-of-the-hous... ↗

Full Text

1,399 chars

We note, however, that classifying the cost of a trial court audio recording as an "extra cost" should not prevent many indigent litigants from obtaining these recordings at no cost. Under G. L. c. 261, § 27C (4), a judge is required to grant a request for a waiver of extra fees and costs if he or she finds "the document, service or object is reasonably necessary to assure the applicant as effective a prosecution, defense or appeal as he [or she] would have if he [or she] were financially able to pay." The standard is "essentially one of reasonableness, and looks to whether a defendant who was able to pay and was paying the expenses himself, would consider the 'document, service or object' sufficiently important that he would choose to obtain it in preparation for his [or her] trial." Commonwealth v. Lockley, 381 Mass. 156, 160, 408 N.E.2d 834 (1980). "The test is not whether a particular item or service would be acquired by a defendant who had unlimited resources, nor is it whether the item might conceivably contribute some assistance to the [case presented] by the indigent person.... The test is whether the item is reasonably necessary to prevent the party from being subjected to a disadvantage in preparing or presenting his case adequately, in comparison with one who could afford to pay for the preparation which the case reasonably requires." Id. at 160-161, 408 N.E.2d 834.

Other Sections in This Document (125)

Full Text