The Supreme Judicial Court today denied a Roslindale man's request to expunge court records showing he was arrested and arraigned on what turned out to be a bogus claim he'd used a gun to threaten a worker - who made up the whole story to try to extort money from him.
The court said the man, identified only by a pseudonym in its ruling, could, however, file a request to have the records of his arrest and court proceedings sealed, so that they could not legally be used to deny him a state job or shown to anybody.
In its ruling, the court described the start of the man's troubles:
On the morning of March 25, 2009, [Ramon] Benzan arrived at the defendant's house in the Roslindale section of Boston to work, but within a few hours, stated that he needed to leave immediately to go to New York. The defendant offered to give Benzan a ride to a subway station, and Benzan accepted. Benzan asked to be paid for his work in cash rather than by check, and to accommodate the request, the defendant dropped off Benzan at the station, withdrew money from a bank, and returned. Benzan swore at the defendant and demanded more money, but the defendant refused to pay Benzan anything more. About forty-five minutes later, the defendant received a telephone call from a Boston police officer, asking if Benzan worked for him. The officer told the defendant that Benzan claimed that the defendant owed him money and had "pulled a gun" on him. The defendant responded that he did not own a gun and that the officer could meet him at his house to discuss the matter.
Thirty minutes after the telephone call, six police officers arrived at the defendant's house, placed him under arrest, and brought him to the West Roxbury police station. The next day, March 26, the arresting officer filed a criminal complaint against the defendant, charging him with assault with a dangerous weapon, namely a gun. See G.L. c. 265, § 15B (b ).
The scheme unraveled - Benzan at one point called the man's lawyer and demanded $5,000 - and the Suffolk County District Attorney's office entered a nolle prosqui filing, withdrawing its case against the man.
But as it did in another Roslindale case two years ago, the state's highest court ruled, tough, the court records are accurate - the guy was, in fact, charged with something - and there was no evidence police or the DA's office had attempted to commit fraud by filing complaints against him:
Like [the woman in the earlier case], the defendant should not have been charged with assault by means of a dangerous weapon because no such assault ever occurred. Nonetheless, the criminal records reflect accurately the pertinent underlying facts, namely, that he was charged with this crime, and that the case was later disposed of by entry of a nolle prosequi. The second paragraph of § 100C, which provides for sealing court and probation records of nol prossed cases if "substantial justice would best be served," is thus directly on point, and it provides the sole remedy.
