## Facts

- A Suffolk County grand jury heard evidence concerning Khari Wilcox over six days across a three-month period and returned indictments for armed robbery and home invasion.
- Wilcox sought discovery of the grand jury’s attendance records to determine whether at least twelve grand jurors who voted to indict had heard all evidence presented, including allegedly exculpatory evidence bearing on identification.
- A Superior Court judge allowed the discovery request and stayed production to permit interlocutory review.
- The Commonwealth petitioned for extraordinary relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3, challenging the discovery order; a single justice reserved and reported the matter to the full court.

## Issues

1. Whether Massachusetts law requires each grand juror who votes to return an indictment to have heard all evidence presented to the grand jury.
2. If no such requirement exists, whether a defendant is entitled to discovery of grand jury attendance records to test compliance with that theory.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court held that Massachusetts law does not require grand jurors voting to indict to have heard all evidence presented.
- Because the asserted “hear all the evidence” requirement does not exist, Wilcox was not entitled to discovery of grand jury attendance records on that basis.
- The court remanded for entry of an order vacating the Superior Court’s discovery order.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment is valid if the grand jury hears sufficient evidence to establish the accused’s identity and probable cause, and at least twelve jurors vote to indict.
- Massachusetts statutes, rules, and common law do not impose a requirement that each voting grand juror must have been present for, and heard, every item of evidence presented during multi-day proceedings.
- Judicial inquiry into internal grand jury matters is limited; disclosure of materials such as attendance records is not warranted absent a legally recognized ground making them material to a valid challenge.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a rule that every grand juror voting to indict must hear all evidence and, as a result, vacated an order requiring disclosure of grand jury attendance records sought to pursue that theory.


Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 767 N.E.2d 1061 (Mass. 2002)