Case record · Massachusetts SJC-13373
Waters v. Kearney: witness-intimidation complaints without meaningful review
Waters repeatedly alleged that intimidation was suppressing witnesses and evidence in an active civil case. The courts treated his requests as criminal-complaint matters while leaving unanswered whether the alleged obstruction violated his own rights to due process, witnesses, evidence, and meaningful access to the courts.
Official SJC caption: In the Matter of Two Applications for a Criminal Complaint, SJC-13373 (Oct. 11, 2023).
Choose the depth you need
Understand the case without opening every exhibit.
Understand the outcome
Read the short account and follow the safety requests through every court level shown in the record.
Start with the summary →Verify the central dispute
Compare the SJC’s standing rule with the constitutional injuries Waters raised and the opinion did not analyze.
Compare the arguments →Audit the underlying record
Open the nine proposed counts, supporting exhibits, video sources, rulings, and appellate brief.
Audit count by count →Two-minute summary
The shortest accurate account
- Origin in an active civil case. Waters says the applications grew out of repeated efforts to protect witnesses and preserve evidence in Waters v. Kearney, Hampden Superior Court No. 1879CV00344. He contended that intimidation was making it unsafe to identify or use witnesses.
- Earlier 2019 proceedings. A clerk entered a general no-probable-cause conclusion. Judicial redetermination was denied without a hearing, and requests to explain the decisions or identify the missing statutory element were also denied without hearings.
- Springfield application. In March 2022, Waters applied for complaints charging two counts of witness intimidation and one unlawful-wiretap count. Two additional intimidation counts were later added. Kearney did not appear at the May 25 show-cause hearing. The assistant clerk-magistrate found no probable cause.
- Judicial redetermination. Waters submitted a detailed motion and a nine-count proposed § 13B complaint. The judge described the clerk’s procedure but did not address any count, disputed fact, statutory element, or constitutional injury individually.
- Boston application. After later conduct that Waters characterized as further witness intimidation, he filed a second 2022 application in Boston. A clerk-magistrate marked two § 13B counts “no probable cause.” Waters did not request redetermination by a BMC judge.
- Extraordinary-review petition. A single SJC justice permitted Waters to supplement his G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition to include the Boston matter, then denied all relief without a hearing.
- Full SJC holding. The SJC held that Waters’s rights within the criminal-complaint process were satisfied once the courts acted on his applications. It ended review on standing without analyzing his asserted constitutional injuries in the underlying civil case.
“We express no view as to whether probable cause exists.” SJC-13373, slip opinion at 3 n.2 (Oct. 11, 2023)
The controlling legal dispute
Did the rule against private prosecution erase Waters’s own constitutional claims?
Massachusetts permits a judge to redetermine a clerk-magistrate’s denial but gives the complainant no entitlement to that review and ordinarily no appeal after redetermination is denied. The SJC treated that criminal-procedure rule as dispositive. Waters argued that the alleged crimes were directly obstructing his own civil cases and therefore presented an independent constitutional injury.
The courts’ reasoning
No judicially cognizable interest in another person’s prosecution
- The Springfield judge said redetermination is discretionary rather than a formal appeal.
- The judge described the clerk’s review and hearing procedure but did not explain why the alleged conduct failed probable cause.
- The SJC characterized issuance or nonissuance of a criminal complaint as a routine lower-court matter that did not require extraordinary superintendence.
- The SJC applied its established rule that a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in another person’s prosecution or nonprosecution.
- Because the courts acted on the applications, the SJC held that Waters’s rights within the private-complaint process had been satisfied.
Waters’s argument
The alleged crimes were obstructing Waters’s own cases
- Waters alleged direct and continuing injury: intimidation was suppressing witnesses and evidence, impairing hearings, and causing emotional and financial harm.
- He invoked the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection, the First Amendment right to seek relief through litigation, and the right to present witnesses and evidence safely.
- He also relied on Article 48’s recognition of “the right of access to and protection in courts of justice” and Article XXIX’s guarantee of impartial administration of justice under the Massachusetts Constitution.
- He argued that relief could redress the injury by protecting participants and stopping obstruction while the civil cases remained pending.
- He distinguished standing precedents in which prosecution was unlikely to redress the injury or an adequate civil or administrative remedy remained available.
- Here, the alleged offenses were themselves preventing recourse through a fair civil suit; the supposed alternative remedy was the proceeding being obstructed.
- He argued that due process required notice of the decisive reasoning and a meaningful opportunity to answer it; without an intelligible reason, he could neither cure a perceived deficiency nor expose legal or factual error.
Procedural history
The safety requests moved through the system. None produced protection or offense-specific findings.
- Waters sought help outside the civil courtroom. In his filed account, Waters stated that the Superior Court declined to investigate the alleged intimidation and directed him to police; local police declined to proceed, the district attorney’s office would not file charges, and State Police directed him to the private-complaint process. He then filed two Springfield applications connected to alleged interference with his civil case.
- No probable cause, no redetermination, and no explanation. A clerk marked the later application “No PC” and gave only a general element-based conclusion. Judicial redetermination was denied without a hearing. Waters then asked the court to explain its decisions or identify the element requiring more evidence; both requests were denied without hearings.
- A new alleged retaliatory sequence followed service in the civil case. A sheriff served Kearney with bank-attachment materials that included a therapist’s letter. Waters submitted group-chat evidence that he argued showed circulation of the filing, efforts to identify the therapist, and coordination surrounding a fake profile that posted violent threats in Waters’s name.
- A second complaint process ended without an offense-specific answer. The application reached five charges at the clerk stage. After no probable cause was found, Waters sought judicial redetermination and submitted a verified nine-count proposed complaint, supporting exhibits, and additional conduct. The judge denied redetermination without addressing any count, element, or cited evidence individually.
- A Boston application also ended at “no probable cause.” Waters sought two new § 13B complaints concerning an October 10 statement directed at Cristina Yakimowsky. The BMC clerk marked both counts “NPC.” Waters did not seek BMC judicial redetermination before adding the matter to his SJC petition.
- The SJC single justice denied all requested relief. Waters petitioned under G. L. c. 211, § 3 regarding Springfield and supplemented the petition with the Boston matter. The single justice accepted the supplement, then denied the petition and every request for relief without a hearing or explanation.
- The final state-court review ended on standing. Waters argued direct injury, due process, equal protection, access to courts and witnesses, the need for intelligible reasons, and probable cause under § 13B. The SJC affirmed under its extraordinary-review and private-complainant standing rules, did not analyze those asserted constitutional injuries, and expressly declined to decide probable cause.
Earlier warning · 2019 record
The court was asked to identify the missing element. It refused.
In docket 1923AC002799, the clerk entered “No PC” and a general statement that the incident did not satisfy the elements of witness intimidation. Waters sought judicial redetermination and then asked the court to explain the decisions or identify which element required more evidence.
1 · Application and clerk disposition
A general element-based conclusion
Application 1923AC002799 sought a witness-intimidation complaint concerning alleged conduct connected to the pending civil case. After the December 17, 2019 hearing, the clerk marked the charge “No PC.” A handwritten entry states, in substance, that the incident did not rise to the elements necessary for intimidation of a witness.
The form logs a recording from approximately 10:58 to 11:30, but that audio is not contained in the appendix. The form does not identify which element failed, which fact was rejected, or whether the issue was law, evidence, credibility, or causation.
2 · Judicial redetermination
The statutory argument was presented before the judicial denial
Waters requested consolidation of dockets 1923AC002146 and 1923AC002799 and de novo redetermination. His memorandum argued that the Legislature had broadened § 13B in 2018, that successful intimidation was unnecessary, that the statute covered interference with civil proceedings, and that timing, alleged retaliation, emotional and economic injury, and online harassment supported the requested complaint.
The order form in the appendix is docketed 1923AC002799. It shows the redetermination request denied without a hearing on January 3, 2020 and supplies no narrative reason.
3 · Request for an explanatory memorandum
Waters asked for the smallest useful explanation
“Explain the decision, or at the very [least] state which element of the listed statutes require more evidence.” Request for Explanatory Memorandum, appendix p. 185
Naming the missing element would have allowed Waters to supply additional evidence, answer the court’s legal interpretation, or seek meaningful review.
4 · Court response
Both requests were denied without hearings
Separate order forms for 1923AC002146 and 1923AC002799 show that the requests were denied without hearings on February 4, 2020. Neither form identifies an element, a controlling fact, an evidentiary deficiency, or a legal authority.
Deeper record Audit the 2019 application and redetermination argument
The complaint materials identify the proposed statutory theories and their alleged connection to the civil litigation. The redetermination memorandum addresses the amended statutory text, the civil-proceeding nexus, timing, alleged retaliation, and the asserted forms of harm.
Advanced record audit
The nine theories in the proposed Springfield complaint
The verified proposed complaint submitted on Springfield redetermination separated the alleged conduct into nine § 13B theories. Expand any count to review the asserted elements, factual basis, and source documents. The redetermination order did not address any count individually. These are filed allegations and legal arguments; no criminal complaint issued.
Count I November 19, 2021 — alleged fake-profile framing and injury to a person attending a civil motion hearing
Waters’s theory: after Kearney was served with a motion and hearing notice, a fake Facebook account using Waters’s identity posted violent threats directed at Kearney’s children. Waters alleged that group-chat messages show coordination designed to make the threats appear authentic, cause emotional injury, and interfere with the next civil hearing and the larger case.
Supporting theory: the filing tied identity and intent to the timing of sheriff service, circulation of the served motion in the group chat, requests for screenshots, later cross-perspective messages, and statements said to show knowledge of how long the fake profile remained online.
Count II December 1, 2021 — alleged use of the disputed threats in a harassment-order hearing
Waters’s theory: Kearney sought a harassment order using the disputed fake-profile threats and, according to the proposed complaint’s account of the hearing, represented that clicking the threatening profile led to Waters’s real account. Waters argued that the proceeding caused injury and impaired his ability to prepare for a civil motion hearing the next day.
Source distinction: the filed 258E affidavit confirms that Kearney sought the order and attributed threatening posts to Waters. Waters’s proposed complaint is the source for his account of the additional in-court representation.
Count III December 1, 2021 — alleged misleading of the harassment-order judge
Waters’s theory: Count III restated the Count II facts as a separate misleading-a-judge theory. It asserted that Kearney presented screenshots he knew Waters had not authored and falsely connected the fake account to Waters’s actual profile.
Why it was separated: Count II focused on injury and intimidation of Waters; Count III focused on the alleged act of misleading the judicial officer.
Count IV January 15, 2022 — alleged threats of emotional or economic injury to Cristina Yakimowsky
Waters’s theory: after Yakimowsky supplied group-chat evidence, Kearney publicly threatened exposure, business harm, relationship harm, and an appearance at her court date. Waters argued that her role as a source and potential witness, her reported fear of retaliation, and the timing supported the required obstructive intent or reckless disregard.
Corroboration offered: the proposed complaint cited a Holden police report identifying group-chat participants and recording that Yakimowsky said she shared material because she did not like Kearney hurting people and feared what he might do.
Count V February 17, 2022 — alleged confrontation and intimidation of Yakimowsky after court
Waters’s theory: the proposed complaint described an aggressive courthouse confrontation followed by a broadcast in which Kearney discussed retaliation, exposing contact information, and the timing of Yakimowsky’s disclosure before another trial. Waters argued that the words, context, and court-linked timing supported probable cause.
Count VI June 18, 2022 — alleged threats to destroy Yakimowsky’s livelihood after subpoena service
Waters’s theory: Kearney was served on June 17 for a June 28 sanctions/default hearing at which Yakimowsky was identified as a primary or potential witness. The next day, a public broadcast threatened persistent attacks on her business, customers, family stability, counsel, and emotional health. Waters argued that the timing, repeated reference to her disclosure, and stated retaliatory purpose readily supported probable cause.
Procedural significance: this conduct occurred after the original clerk hearing but before judicial redetermination. It was pleaded in the proposed complaint and was not addressed separately in the judge’s order.
Count VII April 7, 2022 — alleged misleading of the clerk to obtain an ex parte continuance
Waters’s theory: Kearney emailed the court that he had not received the affidavit and had “no idea” what the allegations were, requested delay, and characterized Waters’s prior matters as frivolous. Waters argued that prior service of substantially the same allegations and exhibits, plus the omission of an appellate reversal, made those statements misleading and helped obtain a continuance without notice to him.
Court-side record: the Springfield order says the continuance was granted because Kearney reported a scheduling conflict. It does not address Waters’s argument that the request also contained materially misleading statements.
Count VIII May 3, 2022 — alleged threats toward Shannon Labarre and her family after evidence disclosures
Waters’s theory: Labarre supplied messages that Waters said authenticated the group chat and contained admissions relevant to the November 19 sequence. The proposed complaint then described messages threatening public attacks on her relatives and reputation unless she stopped. Waters argued that the messages expressly connected the pressure to her assistance and evidence disclosures.
Supporting record: Exhibit D presents the messaging sequence on which this count relied, including cross-perspective screenshots offered to connect the account and group-chat materials.
Count IX June 28, 2022 — alleged public harassment of Labarre during the civil-hearing period
Waters’s theory: the filing asserted that Kearney displayed Labarre’s phone number in a public video, encouraged followers to contact her, and used messages from her family to embarrass her. Waters argued that the public targeting was retaliatory and would cause a reasonable person substantial distress.
Procedural significance: the proposed complaint was signed August 25 and placed this later conduct before the redetermination judge. The September 8 order did not address it separately.
Evidence without forced exposure
Start with the court record; open deeper media only if needed.
The sources are divided into judicial decisions, evidence and argument filed with the courts, and contextual media. This shows what each source establishes and whether it was part of the record presented for decision.
Tier 1 · Judicial decisions
What happened procedurally
Use these first. They establish the 2019 and 2022 dispositions, the requests for judicial redetermination and reasons, the single-justice denial, and the full SJC holding.
Tier 2 · Filed evidence and argument
What Waters placed behind the proposed counts
The appendix includes the redetermination motion, verified proposed complaint, docket, continuance email, group-chat screenshots, sheriff-service proof, therapist note, Holden police report, private messages, fake-profile images, public-post exhibits, subpoena materials, and harassment-order records.
Tier 3 · Source-format and contextual media
Use to test chronology, account control, coordination, and later public statements
These links include source-format copies corresponding to filed screenshots or descriptions and later contextual material. The filings identify which materials were before each court.
What each decision actually decided
What each court decided—and what it left unanswered.
| Decision level | Reason or disposition supplied | What the document did not decide or explain |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 Springfield clerk-magistrate 1923AC002799 |
Marked the witness-intimidation charge “No PC” and wrote, in substance, that the incident did not rise to the required elements. | The entry did not identify which element failed, what evidence was insufficient, or whether the ruling rested on law, fact, credibility, or authentication. |
| 2019 Springfield District Court judge 1923AC002146 and 1923AC002799 |
Denied the redetermination request without a hearing. Later denied the requests for an explanatory memorandum in both dockets without hearings. | The orders did not answer the express request to identify the deficient element and supplied no alternative reason. |
| 2022 Springfield clerk-magistrate | No probable cause on the five charges shown in the docket. The later judge reported that the clerk read the file, questioned Waters, and conducted the hearing fairly. | The available record contains no written, count-specific statement identifying a failed element, rejected fact, evidentiary defect, or legal standard. |
| 2022 Springfield District Court judge | Redetermination is discretionary, not a formal appeal; denial of a private complaint creates no judicially cognizable wrong. The judge denied after reviewing the record and submissions. | The order did not explain the nine proposed counts individually or state whether later conduct submitted on redetermination was rejected on procedure, evidence, law, or credibility. |
| Boston Municipal Court clerk-magistrate | The form marked both October 10 intimidation counts “NPC”—no probable cause. | No narrative reason appears in the form. The appendix contains the application and related papers, but not a hearing audio or transcript or a substantive response from Kearney. |
| SJC single justice | Allowed the supplemental filing, then denied the petition and every request for relief without a hearing. | The judgment supplied no merits or procedural explanation. |
| Full Supreme Judicial Court | Extraordinary superintendence was unnecessary; private complainants lack a judicially cognizable interest in another person’s prosecution; court action on the applications satisfied Waters’s rights. | The SJC expressly took no view on probable cause and did not analyze whether alleged obstruction of Waters’s civil case implicated due process, equal protection, or access-to-courts rights. |
For legislators and court administrators
A rule against private prosecution should not erase a litigant’s constitutional rights.
When alleged witness intimidation is obstructing a pending case, courts should not be able to end the matter with a non-specific denial and no meaningful review. Charging authority may remain with the Commonwealth while courts are still required to explain consequential decisions, preserve the record, and protect the integrity of the proceeding.
Questions for Massachusetts
- Should a denial involving witness intimidation in an active proceeding briefly identify the controlling element, material facts, and principal reason?
- If a complainant expressly asks which statutory element requires more evidence, should a court be permitted to deny that request without answering it?
- Should a person claiming direct interference with his or her own court access receive judicial redetermination as of right, even if prosecution remains entirely with the Commonwealth?
- Should a narrow abuse-of-discretion or plain-legal-error review exist after redetermination?
- Should complainants receive a usable hearing record, subject to necessary privacy protections?
- Should the court make a protective or prosecutorial referral when it declines a private complaint but the record describes ongoing witness risk?
- Should later conduct occurring while redetermination is pending require a new application, or may it be considered through a clearly defined supplemental process?
Questions for Congress
- Are federal access-to-court and witness-protection safeguards adequate when alleged state-proceeding intimidation crosses platforms, jurisdictions, or federal litigation?
- Should federal civil-rights remedies address grave, ongoing obstruction when state procedures provide no practical protection or review?
- Should courts report anonymized data on private complaint applications involving witness intimidation, reasons for denial, redetermination, and later escalation?
- Can evidence-preservation and platform-disclosure procedures be made faster when online impersonation or coordinated harassment allegedly targets a judicial proceeding?
Primary-source index
Read the record in full.
Move from the controlling decisions to the filed applications, constitutional argument, exhibits, and contextual sources.
Case documents
Governing sources
Appendix map Navigate the 186-page record by volume
- Volume I · pp. 4–38: single-justice judgment, G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition, and supplemental petition.
- Volume II · pp. 40–52: Boston Municipal Court notice, disposition, proposed complaint, public-hearing motion, and related screenshot.
- Volume III · pp. 54–153: 2022 Springfield order, redetermination motion, nine-count proposed complaint, docket, and supporting exhibits.
- Volume IV · pp. 155–157: contextual webpages collected after the single-justice decision.
- Volume V · pp. 159–186: 2019 Springfield disposition, redetermination and reasons orders, application materials, supporting argument, and an adjacent 258E order.
Boston record What the available court record contains
The record includes the BMC hearing notice, disposition form, Waters’s verified proposed complaint, his motion to open the hearing, and a related screenshot. It does not include hearing audio, a transcript, or a substantive response from Kearney.
2019 record limit What remains missing from docket 1923AC002146
The appendix contains the redetermination memorandum’s description of docket 1923AC002146, the joint request for an explanatory memorandum, and the order denying that request without a hearing. It does not contain the complete original application, clerk-disposition form, or hearing audio for that docket.