Title: Robin v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12520
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: October 16, 2018

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12520 
 
JEREMY P. ROBIN  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
October 16, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Jeremy P. Robin appeals from a judgment of the county court 
denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3.  Robin, who has been indicted on charges of 
manslaughter and assault and battery, moved that the 
Commonwealth be ordered to produce a transcript of the 
instructions given to the grand jury.  See Commonwealth v. 
Grassie, 476 Mass. 202, 220 (2017) (entire grand jury 
proceeding, excluding deliberations but including any legal 
instructions, "to be recorded in a manner that permits 
reproduction and transcription").  A judge in the Superior Court 
denied the motion, and Robin's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition 
ensued.  The single justice denied relief on the ground that 
Robin has an adequate remedy in the normal appellate process.  
We affirm. 
 
 
The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a party 
challenging an interlocutory ruling of the trial court to "set 
forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot 
adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment 
in the trial court or by other available means."1  S.J.C. Rule 
                     
 
1 The rule also provides that "[t]he appeal shall be 
presented . . . on the papers filed in the single justice 
session" and that the petitioner must file a record appendix 
containing the relevant material.  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  The 
appendix filed by Robin is incomplete, as it omits the 
Commonwealth's opposition to his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition.  
2 
 
 
2:21 (2).  Robin has not met his burden under the rule.  Robin 
argues that the denial of a transcript of the instructions 
hampers his ability to defend himself.  If so, Robin can raise 
the denial of his motion on direct appeal from any conviction 
and, if warranted, obtain relief.  "The fact that . . . this 
process might be time-consuming and the outcome uncertain does 
not render the remedy inadequate."  Calzado v. Commonwealth, 479 
Mass. 1033, 1034 (2018).  The single justice did not err or 
abuse her discretion in denying extraordinary relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
  
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Brian E. Murphy & Maura J. Tansley for the petitioner. 
 
                     
This presents a further reason not to disturb the single 
justice's decision.