On Friday, Dec. 20, Chelsea District Court Judge Dunbar Livingston dismissed domestic violence charges against City Councillor Calvin Brown after the victim and sole witness—Brown’s wife—declined to testify.
Brown’s wife filed a claim of marital privilege with the court, refusing to provide testimony against her husband. Without her testimony, the case had no foundation and was subsequently dismissed, just before Christmas.
The defendant’s wife asserted her marital privilege in her court filing, which eliminated the prosecution’s only witness and effectively eliminated the case.
Brown’s attorney, John Lee Diaz, did not respond to requests for comment.
According to the DA’s office, they had begun the process of assigning the case to an outside prosecutor to avoid any conflict of interest stemming from Brown’s status as an elected official. However, a member of the Chelsea Court staff raised an objection to this arrangement for the record, and the matter was handled internally instead.
Brown’s legal team filed what is termed an ‘accord and satisfaction’—a legal maneuver that prosecutors and the DA’s office generally oppose in domestic violence cases. This technique allows two parties to reach a private settlement before trial, enabling a judge to dismiss charges based on their mutual agreement.
“Generally speaking, we don’t believe an ‘accord and satisfaction’ is appropriate in cases of domestic violence because it can put undue pressure to accept that disposition on a victim who is financially or otherwise dependent on the offender: We objected to it in the 2006 case of baseball player Brett Myers, and we filed legislation earlier this year that would have prohibited judges from granting it in domestic violence cases such as this one. Unfortunately, the Legislature chose not to act on it,” said Jake Wark of the DA’s Office.
In 2006, the Commonwealth challenged the constitutionality of this procedure in domestic violence cases before the Supreme Judicial Court. The SJC rejected the Commonwealth’s challenge and continued to permit the practice.
“We understand the Commonwealth’s concern that in cases like this one, where the assault and battery occurs in the context of domestic violence, that the abuser may be able to intimidate the partner or spouse into signing an accord and satisfaction,” read the 2006 decision written by Justice Roderick Ireland. “However, the seriousness of that concern does not affect whether the statute itself is Constitutional.”
Brown is scheduled to be sworn in for his new City Council term on Jan. 6.