Case record · Massachusetts SJC-13373
Waters v. Kearney: private criminal-complaint applications
This record asks a narrow but consequential question: when reported witness intimidation is said to be obstructing a person’s own civil case, is filing an application and receiving a no-probable-cause decision the end of that person’s enforceable rights—or should some form of reasoned, independent review remain? The full appendix now documents a closely related reasons gap in earlier 2019 proceedings.
Official SJC caption: In the Matter of Two Applications for a Criminal Complaint, SJC-13373 (Oct. 11, 2023). The party names are used on this page to connect the decision with the related filings and civil case.
Choose the depth you need
Understand the case without opening every exhibit.
Understand the outcome
Read the short account, the procedural map, and the SJC’s express probable-cause disclaimer.
Start with the summary →Verify the central dispute
Compare the courts’ no-review reasoning with Waters’s direct-injury argument, then inspect the 2019 request for an explanation.
Verify the earlier sequence →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 warning. The full appendix contains two earlier Springfield dockets. In one, the clerk wrote that the alleged incident did not rise to the elements of witness intimidation. Waters sought consolidated redetermination and later asked the court to explain its decision or at least identify which statutory element required more evidence. The redetermination request and the requests for an explanatory memorandum were 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. A District Court judge found that the clerk had reviewed the original affidavit and exhibits, had conducted the hearing fairly, and had given Waters an opportunity to present evidence. The judge denied redetermination without giving count-specific reasons.
- 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 affirmed. It held that complaint issuance is a routine lower-court matter, that extraordinary superintendence was not required, and that a private citizen’s enforceable rights are satisfied once an application is filed and the court acts on it.
“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
Was court action enough, or was meaningful review required?
Waters often described the requested process as an “appeal.” Massachusetts law draws a sharper distinction: a judge may redetermine a clerk-magistrate’s denial, but the complainant is not entitled to that review and ordinarily cannot appeal if redetermination is denied. Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 is extraordinary, not a substitute ordinary appeal.
The courts’ reasoning
No judicially cognizable interest in another person’s prosecution
- The Springfield judge said redetermination is discretionary and is not a formal appeal.
- The judge found that the clerk reviewed an eight-page affidavit and thirty pages of exhibits, held a roughly forty-nine-minute hearing, asked questions, and allowed Waters to present evidence.
- 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 Waters filed applications and the courts acted on them, the SJC held that his rights in the private-complaint process had been satisfied.
- The BMC branch was procedurally weaker because Waters did not first ask a BMC judge to redetermine the clerk’s decision.
Waters’s argument
This was asserted direct injury to court access—not a generalized demand to prosecute
- Waters argued that the alleged intimidation was aimed at witnesses and evidence in his own pending civil proceedings, creating a direct and ongoing injury rather than a generalized interest in enforcement.
- He argued that fair consideration, reasons, and review could redress that injury by correcting an erroneous refusal to protect the judicial process while correction still mattered.
- He distinguished precedent involving complainants who lacked a direct nexus to the requested prosecution or who retained an adequate civil or administrative alternative.
- He invoked due process, equal protection, access to courts, and the right to present evidence and witnesses safely.
- He argued that a civil suit was not an adequate substitute when the claimed offense was being used to obstruct that very suit.
- He did not need private control over prosecution to obtain a narrower safeguard: an intelligible reason, a reliable record, and review for legal or constitutional error.
- The 2019 appendix confirms that he expressly requested an explanation—or at least identification of the statutory element requiring more evidence—rather than asking to exercise prosecutorial power himself.
Procedural history
From reported witness interference to the SJC’s standing decision
- Denial, redetermination, then a request for reasons. The full appendix contains dockets 1923AC002146 and 1923AC002799. The latter application alleged witness intimidation connected to the civil litigation. On December 17, 2019, the clerk marked “No PC” and wrote, in substance, that the incident did not rise to the elements required for witness intimidation. Waters requested consolidated, de novo redetermination and argued the elements of the 2018 version of § 13B. The redetermination request was denied without a hearing on January 3, 2020. His requests that the court explain its decision or identify the element requiring more evidence were denied without hearings on February 4 in both dockets.
- Service and alleged retaliatory sequence. A sheriff served Kearney with materials for a bank-attachment motion in the civil case. Waters says group-chat materials then show the served filing being circulated, discussion of identifying his therapist, and coordination surrounding a fake profile that posted violent threats in Waters’s name.
- Springfield application and hearing. The original application charged two intimidation counts and unlawful wiretapping. Two additional intimidation counts were added on May 12. Kearney did not appear at the May 25 remote hearing.
- No probable cause; redetermination denied. The assistant clerk-magistrate declined to issue complaints. Waters sought judicial redetermination and submitted an expanded nine-count proposed complaint on August 25. The judge denied redetermination on September 8.
- Boston application. Waters applied for two new § 13B complaints concerning an October 10 statement directed at Cristina Yakimowsky. The BMC clerk found no probable cause on December 2. Waters did not seek BMC judicial redetermination.
- G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition. Waters petitioned the SJC single-justice session regarding Springfield, then supplemented the petition to add the Boston process. The single justice allowed supplementation but denied all requested relief without a hearing.
- Full-court brief. Waters argued direct injury, constitutional access to courts and witnesses, lack of intelligible reasons, and probable cause under § 13B.
- SJC judgment affirmed. The full court upheld the single justice’s decision under its extraordinary-review and private-complainant standing rules while declining to decide probable cause.
Earlier warning · 2019 record
The request was not merely to issue a complaint. It was to say what was missing.
The full SJC appendix turns the 2019 proceedings from background asserted in a later brief into a directly verifiable sequence. It shows a no-probable-cause disposition, a denied request for judicial redetermination, a narrowly worded request for reasons, and two orders denying that request without hearings.
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
The request identified both 2019 dockets and cited the perjury and witness-intimidation statutes. It did not ask the judge to surrender prosecutorial discretion; it asked for enough information to understand the decisions.
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.
These forms prove the disposition and absence of a written explanation. They do not, by themselves, prove that probable cause existed or that any alleged offense occurred.
Deeper record Audit the 2019 application and redetermination argument
The underlying papers allow an advanced reader to test what was actually placed before the court. The complaint materials identify the proposed statutory theories and alleged connection to the civil litigation. The redetermination memorandum then addresses the amended statutory text, the civil-proceeding nexus, timing, alleged retaliation, and the asserted forms of harm.
Do not conflate the filings
Three periods, four docketed applications—but only two applications in SJC-13373
The full appendix identifies two earlier Springfield dockets from 2019, one Springfield application from 2022, and one Boston application from 2022. The SJC’s caption—In the Matter of Two Applications for a Criminal Complaint—refers to the two 2022 matters. The nine-count proposed complaint was a submission on Springfield redetermination, not another application.
Earlier record · not the two SJC applications
2019 Springfield dockets
1923AC002146: the redetermination papers describe an earlier application involving asserted perjury and witness intimidation.
1923AC002799: the appendix contains the later witness-intimidation application, the clerk’s no-probable-cause form, and the denied redetermination request.
Reasons request: Waters identified both dockets when asking the court to explain the decisions or name the element requiring more evidence. Separate orders denied both requests without hearings.
SJC application one
2022 Springfield application
At filing: two witness-intimidation counts under G. L. c. 268, § 13B, plus one unlawful-wiretap count under G. L. c. 272, § 99(C)(1).
After amendment: two additional intimidation counts, for five charges at the clerk stage.
Disposition: no probable cause; judicial redetermination denied.
SJC application two
2022 Boston application
Charges: two § 13B witness-intimidation counts arising from October 10, 2022 conduct described in the appellate brief.
Disposition: the BMC form marks both counts “NPC”—no probable cause.
Procedural limit: Waters did not seek redetermination by a BMC judge before pursuing extraordinary SJC relief.
Advanced record audit
The nine theories in the proposed Springfield complaint
Each item below states what Waters charged, the factual theory he supplied, and what the available court record says in response. These are verified allegations and legal arguments—not criminal findings. No complaint issued, and the SJC did not decide probable cause.
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.
Court treatment: the available Springfield order says the clerk reviewed the original affidavit and exhibits and found no probable cause; the redetermination order supplies no Count I-specific factual or legal reason.
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.
Record boundary: the published 258E affidavit confirms that Kearney sought the order and attributed threatening posts to Waters. The proposed complaint—not the handwritten affidavit—is the present source for Waters’s account of the additional in-court representation.
Court treatment: no Count II-specific reason appears in the redetermination order.
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.
Court treatment: no Count III-specific finding appears in the available order.
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.
Court treatment: no Count IV-specific reason appears in the redetermination order.
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.
Court treatment: no Count V-specific reason appears in the available order.
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.
Court treatment: this conduct occurred after the original clerk hearing and was pleaded in the proposed complaint submitted on redetermination. The judge’s order did not address it separately.
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 court granted the continuance because Kearney reported a scheduling conflict. It does not evaluate the proposed misleading-a-clerk theory.
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.
Court treatment: no Count VIII-specific reason appears in the redetermination order.
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.
Court treatment: the proposed complaint was signed August 25 and placed this later conduct before the redetermination judge; the September 8 order did not discuss it separately.
Evidence without forced exposure
Start with the court record; open deeper media only if needed.
The strongest presentation keeps three layers separate: what the court documents establish, what Waters argued those materials prove, and what later or source-format media adds. That separation lets a reader verify the record without treating disputed allegations as adjudicated facts.
Tier 1 · Dispositive court documents
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 materials in the full SJC appendix
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
Some links below are source-format copies corresponding to screenshots or descriptions in the appendix; others provide later context and were not necessarily submitted in this exact format. They should not be described as part of the adjudicated record unless the filing itself identifies them.
What each decision actually decided
A reason map prevents overclaiming in either direction.
| 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 adjudicate the truth of the allegations or the elements of the proposed counts. |
Credibility guardrails
What this record can—and cannot—establish
The record can establish
- Waters presented multiple criminal-complaint applications in 2019 and 2022 and an expanded verified complaint on 2022 redetermination.
- In 2019, a clerk supplied only a general element-based conclusion; judicial redetermination was denied without a hearing; and express requests for reasons in two dockets were denied without hearings.
- The Springfield and Boston clerks found no probable cause.
- The Springfield judge upheld the clerk process without issuing count-specific findings.
- The single justice denied relief without a hearing, and the full SJC affirmed on superintendence and standing principles.
- The SJC expressly declined to decide probable cause.
- Massachusetts procedure can end review even when the complainant asserts that the offense is obstructing his own pending case.
The record cannot establish by itself
- Criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—or guilt at all—because no complaint, prosecution, or criminal trial occurred.
- Every statement made at the 2019 or Boston show-cause hearings, because the appendix does not include their audio or transcripts.
- The complete underlying record of 2019 docket 1923AC002146; the appendix contains references to that matter and the order denying its reasons request, but not its complete application and clerk-disposition file.
- That every contextual media file was submitted to each court in the same format now linked online.
- That the SJC approved, rejected, or even reached the probable-cause merits.
For legislators and court administrators
The reform question is not whether a private person should control prosecution.
The narrower question is whether allegations of ongoing interference with witnesses and a pending case should be allowed to end with an unexplained or non-specific “no probable cause” and no dependable route to identify or correct legal or constitutional error.
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.
Court holdings are described as holdings; Waters’s positions are described as arguments; proposed criminal counts are described as allegations. The page does not supply a defense position where the available record does not contain one.
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.
Record note Why the Boston branch is presented more narrowly
The full appendix 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 a hearing audio or transcript or a substantive response from Kearney. The page therefore reports the two no-probable-cause dispositions and Waters’s filed position without inventing the clerk’s unstated reasoning or reconstructing Kearney’s hearing argument from memory.
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. The page therefore describes the 2146 allegations only to the extent the filed redetermination papers do.