Gravito v. Commonwealth: Defendants May Obtain Their Own Sealed Acquittal Records

Attorney Joe Serpa is a Georgetown University Law Center graduate who has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995.

On November 25, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in Gravito v. Commonwealth, No. SJC-13705 (Mass. Nov. 25, 2025), that M.G.L. c. 276, § 100C permits a defendant and appellate counsel to obtain the defendant’s own automatically sealed acquittal record without filing a special motion. The decision does not make sealed records public, create access to records sealed to protect another person, or decide when the Commonwealth may inspect a sealed record. It answers a narrower question: automatic sealing protects a defendant from public disclosure without preventing the defendant from using the defendant’s own record in the same criminal case.

Records Covered by Gravito

Section 100C requires the automatic sealing of records from a not-guilty finding, grand-jury no bill, or judicial finding of no probable cause unless the defendant objects in writing. The same statute allows a person to petition a judge to seal a dismissal or nolle prosequi when substantial justice would best be served. Section 100A uses a different procedure for eligible convictions: the person submits a request to the Commissioner of Probation after the statutory waiting period.

Gravito addressed the first category. The jury acquitted Mark Gravito on five charges, and § 100C automatically sealed the records of those acquittals. The Court did not decide access to every record sealed under § 100C or § 100A.

The Court read § 100C together with the Criminal Offender Record Information statute, M.G.L. c. 6, § 175. Section 175 allows the subject of a sealed record to inspect, and when practicable obtain a copy of, criminal offender record information about that person. The firm’s Massachusetts CORI guide explains who may obtain different categories of Massachusetts criminal records.

Limits of the Decision

Gravito concerns a record sealed to protect the defendant who seeks access. It does not create a right to inspect a record sealed to protect another person’s interests, including a witness’s constitutional rights. It also does not open sealed records to employers, landlords, licensing boards, or the public.

The Court did not decide when the Commonwealth may inspect a sealed record. Statutes governing criminal-justice agency access control that separate question. Nor did the Court decide every request a person might make for a sealed record in a later proceeding, licensing matter, or record-correction dispute.

What Happened in Gravito

A jury convicted Gravito of one count of indecent assault and battery on a child and acquitted him on five other counts. Section 100C automatically sealed the records of the acquitted charges. During Gravito’s appeal, a Superior Court judge allowed appellate counsel to review the sealed material only under supervision at the courthouse and prohibited counsel from making or keeping copies.

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated that restriction. The Court held that § 100C did not require Gravito to give up automatic sealing before obtaining the records needed for the appeal. The statute’s written opt-out procedure allows a defendant to keep an acquittal record unsealed, but a defendant’s decision not to opt out does not surrender the defendant’s later right to obtain that record. The Court also explained that restricting counsel to supervised courthouse review interfered with counsel’s ability to prepare the appeal.

Access to an Acquittal Record After Gravito

A defendant does not have to choose between the privacy provided by automatic sealing and access to the defendant’s own acquittal record for an appeal in the same criminal case. The defendant may allow the court to seal the record automatically and later obtain it with appellate counsel.

The holding remains limited to the question the Court decided. A person seeking a sealed record for a motion for a new trial, a record correction, a professional-license application, or another purpose may need to identify a different statutory or procedural basis for access.

The Sealing Rules Relevant to Gravito

Massachusetts uses different procedures for different records. Under § 100A, a person requests that the Commissioner of Probation seal an eligible conviction after the applicable waiting period. Under § 100C, the court automatically seals specified acquittals and other non-conviction dispositions unless the defendant objects, while a person must petition a judge to seal a dismissal or nolle prosequi. Expungement is narrower and erases a covered Massachusetts record rather than limiting third-party access to it.

Massachusetts employment law also restricts questions about sealed and expunged records. Under M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4(9)(iv), an employer may not request information about a record sealed or expunged under chapter 276, keep that information, use an application form that asks for it, or hold the applicant’s silence against the applicant.

The firm’s Massachusetts sealing and expungement standards page explains the eligibility rules, waiting periods, and judicial standards without extending Gravito beyond its holding.

Students and Licensed Professionals

Applications for a school, license, or regulated position may ask questions that differ from ordinary private-employment questions. A college or university student or a licensed professional should obtain the certified docket and disposition before answering. The applicant should identify the exact disposition, read the question as written, and determine whether the governing rule requires disclosure.

The student criminal-defense FAQs and licensed-professionals criminal-defense FAQs address common disclosure questions for those applications.

Using Gravito to Obtain a Sealed Record

If a court or clerk’s office refuses to provide a defendant or appellate counsel with the defendant’s own automatically sealed acquittal record for an appeal in the same criminal case, Gravito supplies direct authority for the request. A request made for another purpose may require different authority because the Court did not decide every form of later access.

The firm’s page on sealing and expunging a Massachusetts criminal record explains which records can be sealed or expunged. The Massachusetts sealing and expungement FAQs answer common questions about waiting periods, employment disclosures, federal records, and petition procedures.

Attorney Joe Serpa reviews the CORI, docket, disposition, and reason the record is needed before advising a client about access, sealing, or expungement. To discuss a Massachusetts sealed record, call 617.936.0201 or contact Serpa Law Office for a free consultation.