A correction has been added to the story regarding Judge Carol Ball’s involvement in another case.

The judge in the cases against former Probation Commissioner John O’Brien and a one-time top aide to Treasurer Timothy Cahill today returned to prosecutors their “statements of the case,” calling the documents a violation of the defendants’ rights and opening the door to ending the normally routine filing practice.

Superior Court Judge Carol Ball, during a hearing on whether to lift an impoundment order sealing the records, says she is moving away from allowing prosecutors to file the statements – a broad outline of charges and evidence prosecutors present to a judge to summarize their cases – and says she is not alone among her colleagues in being wary of letting such documents become part of the official record.

Ball called the filings “an invention by Judge [Hiller] Zobel” in the mid-1990s when he sat in Middlesex Superior Court. Since then, Ball said, “they took on a life of their own.” She added: “There is no statutory rule for these. They are just invented documents.”

The issue arose in September at the arraignment of O’Brien and Scott Campbell, the former Cahill aide, on charges of conspiracy to bribe an official through a campaign fundraiser in 2005 that O’Brien held for Cahill in exchange for Campbell allegedly getting O’Brien’s wife a job at the state Lottery. In addition, O’Brien, who was fired after explosive reports of widespread patronage and favoritism in hiring at the probation office, was charged with filing a false affidavit in connection with the promotion of a chief probation officer.

Assistant Attorney General Peter Mullin offered statements of the case at the arraignment, but Clerk Magistrate Margaret Sanel, acting on a motion by Campbell’s attorney Charles Rankin, would only accept them under seal.

The Boston Globe filed a motion to lift the impoundment and today, the paper’s attorney, Jonathan Albano, argued that because the documents were part of the record, they should be public.

Ball agreed the public has a right to see documents that are part of the case file, but she said she never would have allowed the statements to be filed in the first place and told Mullin if the prosecutors want to release them they can release them as a press release.

“To have them filed in court so they are judicial documents and have the judicial imprimatur on them, that violates the defendant’s constitutional rights,” Ball said before handing the sealed envelopes back to Mullin. “I have issues with that in the case of the presumption of innocence.”

Brad Puffer, a spokesman for Attorney General Martha Coakley, said the office will not release the statements in light of Ball’s ruling that it could create constitutional issues.

“The purpose of these statements has always been to assist the court,” said Puffer. “The judge has rejected this document in this case. For this reason, the statement of the case will not be made available unless requested by the court.”

 There were indications in court that while most of the information has been reported in media accounts or in the report by special counsel Paul Ware about O’Brien’s handling of the probation department, the statements had additional allegations that have not been disclosed. Mullin indicated there was some grand jury testimony included in the statements as well as some information about conversations O’Brien had with other people that has not been reported. He did not give specifics during the hearing or afterwards.

O’Brien’s attorney, Brendan Pitts, argued the documents should not be released because they reference grand jury testimony and other information “that the public does not know,” which could taint a jury pool with pretrial publicity. But Ball said that, after reading the documents, she saw nothing in them that would prejudice the case and little she had not previously read.

“I think this is a bucket in the ocean, a large drop in a very big pond,” she said.

Most district attorneys file statements of a case as a matter of routine, as does the attorney general’s office, though some have restrictions on when and what cases they file them in. Ball said judges in Suffolk Superior Court don’t accept them for homicide cases but Jake Wark, a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley, said prosecutors from his office file them in “most Superior Court cases,” including homicide. Norfolk County has been filing the statements in nearly all cases regularly since the late 1990s.

“Some judges ask for them and expect them,” says David Traub, spokesman for Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey, who added he could not recall any instances of the office not filing them. “Several judges use them, particularly in lobby conferences. We see it as good practice. We would also respect the position if there were judges that didn’t want them. They are filed as a matter of course in most cases.”

Joan Kenney, a spokeswoman for the Supreme Judicial Court, said she could not comment on a judge’s ruling.

Ball has precedent for refusing to accept the statements. Ball is not the first judge to refuse a statement of facts concerning a high profile case. In 2009, she Judge Peter Lauriat would not allow prosecutors in the state’s case against Richard Vitale, a lobbyist and friend and financial advisor to former House Speaker Sal Dimasi, to submit an 18-page statement of the case because she did not want it to be part of the record. She He later declined to accept a five-page version of the statement. Ball handled Vitale’s case last month when he changed his plea to guilty to failing to register as a lobbyist and she sentenced him to probation and ordered hm to pay $92,000.

Ball indicated at the O’Brien hearing that she will be hard-pressed in the future to allow statements to be filed except upon a judge’s request to determine bail or probation. “To do so as a court document frankly offends me,” she said.