Matri-Kavarnos, Carolyn v. Norfolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20260395)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 19, 2026 SPR26/0395 Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Records Access Officer Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office 45 Shawmut Road Canton, MA 02021 Dear Attorney Hunt: I have received the petition of Carolyn Matri-Kavarnos, of TrueCrimechat.org, appealing the response of the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § l0A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 30, 2026, Ms. Matri- Kavarnos requested, “… all police body cam, interviews, surveillance video, crime scene reports, photos, documents related to the homicide investigation related to [an identified individual].” The Office responded on February 4, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Matri- Kavarnos petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0395, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/0395 Page 2 February 19, 2026 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Current Appeal In her February 4, 2026 appeal, Ms. Matri-Kavarnos states, “[t]his is a request for the information pertaining to the case of MA vs Brian Walshe who was convicted of the murder of [an identified individual].” The Office’s February 4th Response In its February 4, 2026 response, the Office cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law and stated as follows: At this time, the records you seek are exempt from public disclosure pursuant to statutory exemptions because they pertain to an active and ongoing criminal prosecution, the disclosure of which would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(f); Commonwealth v. Brian Walshe, Docket No. 2382CR00091; see G.L. c. 278, § 33E (first degree murder convictions have automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court where court will conduct plenary review of whole case for consideration of law and evidence). The records, which contains potential evidence and statements from witnesses, if disclosed could amount to a premature disclosure of a piece of Commonwealth’s case prior to the resolution of the appeal and “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement.” G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(f); cf. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976) (among the purposes of the investigatory exemption (f) “would be the avoidance of premature disclosure of the Commonwealth’s case prior to trial”). Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the pending matter, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Walshe, Brian Reza, Docket No. 2382CR00091, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the

Brandon P. Hunt, Esq. SPR26/0395 Page 3 February 19, 2026 applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Carolyn Matri-Kavarnos