In some cases, not much. But for those who know or suspect that they may have CORI and are seeking employment, housing, higher education, insurance, credit or some other benefit which a gatekeeper has power to give or withhold, here is a list of things that might be helpful and should certainly be considered.

1.  Get One's Own CORI, by requesting from, or downloading from the web site of, the CHSB a Personal CORI Request form, and filling it out and sending it in (with the Affidavit of Indigency, if applicable - see ¶ 7, page 8). Note also that copies of the forms are in item [A] of the Appendix. When the CORI report comes in, study it and see if it is accurate. The Crime Glossary and the CORI Codes, respectively, in Appendix items [B] and [C] may prove to be helpful.

For persons who regularly review CORI reports it might help to get the Master Crime List from the web site below:

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/corimastercrimelist.pdf.

This document is 142 pages long, organized in three versions. Most people find the most useful version is the one which lists the crimes alphabetically by their titles, starting at page 73 of this mammoth compendium. Alas, some crimes are hard to find.

If the CORI report is not accurate as to what it says about what happened in a particular case, and that is harmful, try to get it corrected by bringing the matter to the attention of the clerk's or probation office of the court. (CHSB on its website suggests calling the CARI Unit at OCP, 617-727-5300.)

If the problem is that the CHSB computer appears to have come up with the wrong person, by attaching your identity to someone else's CORI, you should probably bring the matter, in a letter, to the attention of the legal office of the CHSB. Note the discussion in footnote 29 in Question 6, about the data elements identifying the CORI subject which the CHSB form requests versus the mere two data elements - name and date of birth - which the computer searches for. If one or more of the data elements (e.g., social security number) on the CORI report contradicts those shown on the form submitted, the legal office may be persuaded to make a new CORI search, using both the computer and visual inspection to assure the proper match, and, if there is no proper match, to re-report "No record" to the requester.

If the CHSB legal office produces no useful results, try to get the police department associated with the case to take your fingerprints and compare them with the prints the police have for the arrestee in the case. (CHSB's website states that you can contact CHSB to arrange fingerprint analysis.) If the police find that the prints do not match, try to get a writing from the police to this effect (preferably a detailed sworn statement) and bring it to the probation office of the court, or, if that does not help, to the Office of the Commissioner of Probation.

If the above suggestions do not work, the CORI subject may file a motion with the court which handled the case to re-open the case and correct the record, and, that failing, make a complaint to the CHSB under the statute and the CHSB regulations.^[43]

If the CHSB refuses to make the change and there's a chance a Superior Court judge would find the refusal to be without factual basis or otherwise not according to law, the CORI subject may appeal the CHSB's decision to the Superior Court.^[44]

2. Try to Get Records Sealed. The record sealing statutes provide for sealing (making unavailable to most requesters) a record either when it has "aged out" by reason of the passage of time or where the case ended favorably for the defendant.

With respect to a case ending in a CONVICTION AND AGED-OUT CASES the Commissioner of Probation (1 Ashburton Place, Rm. 405, Boston, MA 02108, 617-727-5300), after getting a properly filled-out petition form, shall seal a felony record, if the final disposition of the case (whichever came last - discharge from probation, prison or parole) took place 15 or more years ago. A misdemeanor record will be sealed if the final disposition was 10 or more years ago.^[45] For a copy of the petition form see Appendix item [F].

However, as to either a felony or a misdemeanor, within the 10 years before the petition form is filed, the person must not have been convicted of anything more serious than a $50 motor vehicle offense.^[46]

Unfortunately, despite what is written above, the Office of the Commissioner of Probation (OCP) takes the position, sometimes, that it will not seal any of a person's CORI until OCP can seal all of that person's CORI.^[47] We think this is a wrong reading of the statute, and it may be challenged at an appropriate point.

With respect to a case ending favorably, i.e., NOT WITH A CONVICTION for the defendant, the sealing process and procedures are now much more complicated. (A photocopy of the triplicate form, which one has to get from the court or OCP, is at Appendix item [G])

If the case was one where a grand jury failed to indict a person (that is, returned a "no bill"), the Commissioner is required by statute to seal the record automatically and direct the clerk of the court to do the same, unless the defendant asks in writing that this not be done.^[48] This is still good law, undisturbed by court decision.

But if the case was one where the judge or the ("petit") jury, after a trial, found the defendant "Not Guilty," the automatic sealing of the record (under the same statute mentioned above) was held by a federal court in 1989 (in the Pokaski case) to be unconstitutional.

The court declared that automatic sealing in such a situation offended the public's right to know what its government was doing, under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, the court required that the sealing take place only after a judge, not in the proceeding where the defendant was found not guilty, determines, after hearing, that there is a "compelling state interest," based on the particular facts of the situation, which overcomes the 1st Amendment interest in keeping the record open.^[49]

If the case is one which ends favorably for the defendant, in that he or she is not convicted, that is, is nol prossed by the prosecutor and/or dismissed by the court without there having been any order of probation, the sealing process is the most complicated. The applicable state statute provides that the CORI subject must (on a pre-printed form from the court) petition the applicable court for sealing, and that the judge, after hearing, may order the case sealed "if it appears to the court that substantial justice would be served."^[50] But this process is also now affected by the Pokaski case, which imposed the further requirement that the judge find, as well, that there is a compelling state or governmental interest, based on the facts of the person requesting sealing, to overcome the constitutional interest in keeping the record open. Further, a 1995 state Supreme Judicial Court decision (the Doe case) required that in these discretionary sealing cases there must be two hearings -- the first in which the petitioner requests sealing and shows that it is appropriate under the state and federal standards; and, if the court agrees, a second hearing, at which the prosecutor, the probation office, perhaps the alleged victim and others, have a chance to come in and contest the petition for sealing.^[51]

Actual practice seems to vary from court to court and judge to judge. Sometimes persons with sealable CORI, with some coaching, are able to go into court on their own and get the CORI sealed, and sometimes not. The same is true of savvy lawyers. In all situations, however, we think the best practices are to (a) get and analyze the criminal case records from the court; (b) prepare and file with the petition a petitioner's affidavit of the facts which demonstrate how the client is being, or is highly likely to be, harmed if the CORI is not sealed; and (c) prepare and file a memo of facts and law, urging the sealing. And, if you fail, remember that a non-conviction case that is aged-out under § 1 00A, may be sealed under that section.

Both of these criminal record sealing statutes require an employer, on any application form, to have a statement that if the employer asks about a criminal record that has been sealed, the applicant may answer "no record."^[52]This has generally been construed to cover, as well, oral exchanges of information and to protect the applicant from being fired for lying on the application, in the (we hope unlikely) event that the employer later finds out about the sealed record.

Finally, there are special sealing statutes in the Substance Abuse Law, which are less restrictive, relating to certain convictions and favorable dispositions on drug charges.^[53]

Many people have asked if sealing a record sends a "red flag" for employers or other gatekeepers. Usually, the answer is NO. As noted in questions 3-5, once a record is sealed, most requesters will not be able to see any indication that there is a sealed record on file.

3.    Assert Rights under the Other Protective Statutes, referred to in question 6, when dealing with an employer who is out of compliance with those laws. But be warned that these may be of minimal help in most situations.

There is also a section of the CORI law which gives "any aggrieved person" (including a CORI subject) a right to sue about a violation of the CORI law in the Superior Court, possibly to obtain a court order, money damages and a court-awarded fee for the suing party's attorney, to be paid by the CORI law violator.^[54] But we think its usefulness is still untested.

4.    Prepare to Demonstrate Rehabilitation & Unlikelihood of Offending Again. Even though the CORI system, as it now works, does not give an ex-offender many breaks, a CORI­subject would be wise to put together a file folder, with letters from probation officers, clergy, counselors, treatment people, or anyone (not a relative) whose opinion would be respected, explaining why it is unlikely that the ex-offender will commit crime again and how he or she has become a useful member of society who is trying to be productive. (See sample "changed person" letter in the Appendix item [H].) Sooner or later a break may come - especially as a result of the new gatekeeper due process regulations - and it will be good to be ready.

5.    Finally, if you are a CORI subject and need advice, call the Legal Advocacy Resource Center, 617-603-1700. The Mass. Law Reform Institute, which produces this guide, continues to produce helpful materials and provide a limited number of trainings; analyze how to effectively assist persons stymied from mainstream living because of their CORI; gather data on the extent of the problems; and work for "law reform" of the CORI law and its uses. We try to help if we have the resources to provide individual assistance.

Good Luck!

[43] G.L c. 6, § 175 and 803 CMR § 6.08. The procedures here are laid out generally in G.L. c. 6, § 175, which speaks broadly of agencies contributing to that body of information known as CORI. While the text above refers to courts, this same provision might be applicable to try to correct a Dept. of Correction or Parole Board record relating to when the subject was released from custody or supervision.

[44] G.L. c. 6, § 176 and G.L. c. 30A, § 14, the state Administrative Procedure Act.

[45] Some crimes are not sealable: (1) relating to firearms, c. 140 § 121-13 1H, (e.g., selling ammunition without a license or buying a gun from an unlicensed seller); (2) crimes against public justice, c. 268 (e.g., perjury or escaping or aiding an escape from prison); and (3) conflict-of-interest violations, c. 268A (e.g., when a state employee for his agency buys equipment from the employee's private business).

[46] G.L. c. 276, § 1 00A, 1st through 4th [unnumbered] paragraphs. Section 1 00B is a comparable statute as to a juvenile record, which may be sealed after a comparably-measured 3 years.

[47] Letter of 12/31/2003 from Anthony C. Sicuso, Deputy Commissioner/Legal Counsel, OCP, to Francisca D. Fajana, Esq. of MLRI.

[48] G.L. c. 276, § 1 00C, 1st paragraph.

[49] Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski, 868 F.2d 497, 510 (1st Cir. 1989).

[50] G.L. c. 276, § 100C, 2d paragraph.

[51] Commonwealth v. Doe, 420 Mass. 142, 150 (1995).

[52] G.L. c. 276, § 100A (relating to as-of-right sealing upon the passage of time), 5th [unnumbered] paragraph. There are comparable provisions in § 100B (relating to juvenile records) and § 100C (relating to discretionary sealing of records by a court).

[53] G.L. c. 94C, § 34, 2d & 3d [unnumbered] paragraphs, and § 44.