Defendants in Massachusetts can No Longer be Held Without Bail when Charged with Armed Robbery

In a landmark decision released today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) significantly limited the power of the Commonwealth to hold individuals in jail while they await trial. The case, Agostini v. Commonwealth, further clarifies the boundaries of the state’s "dangerousness" statute, M.G.L. c. 276, §58A. Under this law, the government can request that a defendant be held without bail if they are charged with certain specific crimes and are deemed a danger to the community.

The SJC ruled that armed robbery is no longer a "predicate offense" that allows for this type of pretrial detention. This means that, moving forward, defendants in Massachusetts can no longer be held without bail when charged with armed robbery under the statute's force clause.

To reach this conclusion, the Court applied what is known as the "categorical approach." Instead of looking at the specific, often messy facts of an individual case, the Court looked strictly at the legal definition of the crime itself. They determined that because the crime of armed robbery can technically be committed with minimal force (such as a simple purse snatching) and without the actual use of a weapon, it does not automatically meet the legal definition of a "violent" crime required by the dangerousness statute. This is a major victory for due process and the fundamental right to liberty for all Massachusetts residents and their families.

---

If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime in Massachusetts, fill out our contact form or call us at (978) 744-1220 for a free case evaluation.

---

The Case of Domingo Agostini

The specific facts of Mr. Agostini’s case highlight why this distinction is so important. In August 2025, Mr. Agostini was charged with armed robbery following an incident at a local bank. The prosecution alleged that he showed a teller a piece of a paper bag with the words "I have a bomb" written on it. Notably, the teller never actually saw a bomb or any other weapon, and no physical violence occurred during the encounter.

While the prosecution argued that the threat of a bomb justified holding Mr. Agostini without bail as a danger to society, the SJC used this situation to clarify the law. The Court noted that under the legal definition of armed robbery, a person can be convicted even if they never display a weapon or use actual physical force. Because the law is broad enough to cover non-violent conduct, it cannot be used as an automatic trigger for "dangerousness" detentions. This ensures that the government cannot bypass a defendant's right to bail based on a charge that, by its very definition, does not always involve the use of physical force.

Why "Force" Matters: Comparing Armed Robbery to Other Crimes

In its decision, the SJC explained that for a crime to fall under the "force clause" of Section 58A, it must involve a level of physical power that goes beyond a "mere touching." The Court drew a clear line between armed robbery and other crimes like rape. In previous cases, the Court held that rape is a predicate offense because the act of nonconsensual sexual penetration is inherently violent.

Armed robbery, however, is different. The Court pointed to long-standing Massachusetts precedent involving "purse snatching." Under our laws, a person can be convicted of robbery if they use just enough force to make the victim aware that their property is being taken, even if there is no struggle or injury. The SJC reasoned that if the "most innocent" version of a crime (like a quick purse snatching) does not require violent physical force, then the entire category of that crime cannot be used to lock someone up without bail.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that simply being "armed" with a weapon is not the same as using or threatening to use it. A person can be charged with armed robbery just for having a pocketknife in their pocket during a theft, even if the victim never sees it. Because the mere presence of a weapon does not equal the "use" of force, the Court concluded that armed robbery does not fit the strict requirements of the dangerousness statute.

A Turning Point for Defendants in Massachusetts

This decision is a significant shift in the landscape of Massachusetts criminal law. For years, the "dangerousness" statute has been used to detain people before they have even been convicted of a crime, often causing them to lose their jobs, housing, and connection to their families while they wait months for trial. By removing armed robbery as a predicate offense, the SJC has reinforced the principle that pretrial detention should be a "carefully limited exception" rather than the rule.

For defendants and their families, this means that an armed robbery charge is no longer an automatic ticket to being held without bail. While judges still have the authority to set cash bail or impose conditions of release, they can no longer use Section 58A to keep a person in jail solely based on an armed robbery charge while they await trial. This ruling protects the presumption of innocence and ensures that the state’s power to take away a person's liberty is strictly controlled by the law, enabling defendants to return to the support of their families to fight their cases from the outside, where they have a better chance of winning.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime in Massachusetts, don't face it alone. Attorney Patrick Regan is a fierce advocate with over 30 years of experience fighting hard to protect defendants' rights in Massachusetts courts. Contact us today by filling out our contact form or calling our office at (978) 744-1220 for a free case evaluation.