The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard argument Tuesday in SJC No. 13748, Edward Pierce v. Commonwealth, over whether the Commonwealth may appeal orders granting habeas corpus relief in sexually dangerous-person (SDP) cases and whether the court should overrule the so-called Wyeth rule that generally bars government appeals from such habeas allowances.

Counsel for the respondent, Mary Murray, said appellate review is necessary to protect public safety and prevent the manipulative use of habeas petitions to evade appellate review. "All are best served by appellate review of orders discharging SDP...regardless of whatever title is given to the procedural mechanism below," Murray told the court. She argued Wyeth should be overruled because it "encourages the manipulative use of the petition for writ of habeas corpus to thwart the Commonwealth's right to challenge the legal correctness of orders."

The petitioner's counsel, Joseph Keneally, countered that habeas was appropriate in this case because, counsel argued, Mr. Pierce's original SDP commitment was invalid due to an absence of sufficient qualified examiners. "We know this commitment was invalid. There were not sufficient qualified examiners. The case never should have gone to trial," Keneally told the justices, and he urged the court to allow habeas relief where the procedural defects create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Why the court should or should not overturn Wyeth animated much of the argument. Murray emphasized changes in appellate practice and statutes that permit appeals from orders of the superior court, saying those developments reduce the original reasons for barring appeals. A justice pressed whether the legislature could overcome the historical constitutional policy that habeas be a speedy remedy; Murray replied that constitutionally protected due process does not foreclose appellate review and that stays can protect liberty while litigation proceeds.

Keneally focused on available alternative remedies and waiver. The justices and counsel debated whether Mr. Pierce had adequate alternate remedies — including a motion for a new trial or a motion to vacate the commitment order — and whether those alternatives made habeas improper. Keneally urged the court to apply the "substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice" standard to habeas claims in SDP matters when procedural defects are evident.

Counsel and the justices discussed the procedural history in this case. Argument referenced an appeals-court decision identified as Johnstone and differing dates were cited during argument; counsel said the appeals-court Johnstone decision had been issued roughly six weeks before a subsequent August 4 conviction, and elsewhere another speaker referred to Johnstone as decided in 2009. The transcript shows Mr. Pierce absconded in 2002, was returned to custody in February 2005, had his criminal sentence lapse in February 2022, and — according to counsel’s statements at argument — was released on habeas in September 2023.

The argument also canvassed precedent. Murray listed cases in which the SJC or its predecessors sometimes entertained appeals despite Wyeth, including Newton, Bishop, Chambers (1915), Harris (1941), Needle and Stearns (1960s), McIntyre and others, arguing that the doctrine has been unevenly applied and should be formally overruled. Keneally relied on waiver and miscarriage-of-justice doctrines (including Randolph) to press why habeas remained an appropriate vehicle here.

No decision was announced from the bench. The court’s questions showed interest both in the wider doctrinal question — whether Wyeth should be overruled — and the narrower one raised in Pierce’s case: whether habeas was the correct vehicle to remedy an alleged Johnstone-related defect in the SDP commitment. Any formal ruling could affect appellate reviewability of habeas orders in SDP and possibly other cases.

The transcript is an oral-argument record; it contains argument from counsel and questioning by the justices but not a ruling. The court will issue a written decision if and when it resolves these questions.