DePina v. Rachel Rollins, the Boston Police Dep’t, and the Worcester County District Attorney.
Attorney
Attorney
DEFENDANT
In this case, Worcester DAs Office prosecuted DePina for violating G.L. c. 26, § 13B based on DePina heckling Suffolk County DA Rachael Rollins during a televised press conference. The charge alleged that DePina’s heckling incorporated reference to the three criminal cases pending against him that the Suffolk County DA’s Office was prosecuting. The entire incident was on video.
DePina filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause. The court dismissed the charges based on lack of probable cause and noted that DePina’s speech was within the First Amendment’s protective reach.
DOCS - BMC:
Press:
PLAINTIFF
After securing the dismissal of criminal charges arising from his protected speech in 2022, DePina is now suing former district attorney Rachael Rollins and other state officials for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and violation of his freedom of speech after being prosecuted for heckling Rollins.
Despite the dismissal of charges, DePina’s effort to vindicate his constitutional rights faces the steep obstacle of absolute prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity—doctrines that shield officials from liability even when they run roughshod over constitutional freedoms. In January of 2025, DePina sought further appellate review from the Massachusetts Supreme Court, asking it to reconsider its endorsement of these abuse-enabling immunities.
DOCS - Superior Court:
- Verified Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
- Verified Complaint and Rule 11 Certification
- DePina 9A Packet for Motion for Recusal
- Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery
- Opposition to Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery
- Reply ISO Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery
- Order Denying Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery
- City Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery
- Opp City Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery
- Order Granting City Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery
- Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
- Opposition to Commonwealth Defendnats’ Motion to Dismiss
- Reply ISO Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
- City Defendants’ 9A Packet for Motion to Dismiss
DOCS - MA Appeals Court:
DOCS - MA Supreme Judicial:
DOCS - FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW
PRESS:
On October 10, 2024 Marc Randazza argued this case before the Massachusetts Court of Appeals. In that argument, the key issues were whether Rachel Rollins or the Boston Police Department were entitled to Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity.
