Landmark Decisions
Commonwealth v. Adjutant - March 14, 2005
SJC announces new common-law rule of evidence: When the theory of self-defense is raised and the identity of the first aggressor is in dispute, evidence of the victim's aggressive and violent character is admissible, regardless of when the defendant learned of it.
Commonwealth v. Cheney - December 15, 2003
This case finally settles the principle that pre-trial probation as a disposition, over the Commonwealth's objection, is unconstitutional and cannot be done in any court!
Crawford v. Washington - March 08, 2004
In a decision that promises to generate a host of defense challenges, the United States Supreme Court ruled that statements taken by police officers in the course of interrogations are "testimonial" evidence. Therefore, if the witness who made the statements is legally "unavailable" at the time of trial, in order for the hearsay statements to be admissible, the defendant must have had the opportunity for cross examination.
Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista - August 16, 2004
When the police do not electronically record a custodial interrogation or interrogation conducted in a place of detention, and evidence of the defendant's confession or statement is introduced into evidence, the defendant is entitled, on request, to a cautionary jury instruction concerning the use of such evidence.
Commonwealth v. Dwyer - December 29, 2006
The SJC has announced a new protocol governing requests by defendants to inspect statutorily privileged records that are in the possession of a third party. This new protocol replaces the Bishop-Fuller protocol, and applies prospectively to all criminal cases tried after the issuance of the rescript of this case, which is expected to be January 26, 2007.
Commonwealth v. Galicia - November 30, 2006
Statements made by a victim to a 911 dispatcher are admissible if they were made under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose was to enable police to meet an ongoing emergency. Conversely, statements made by a victim to responding officers when the emergency passed are not admissible.
Giles v. California
When offering hearsay statements by an unavailable declarant under the "forfeiture by wrongdoing" doctrine, the state must establish not only that the defendant caused the absence of the declarant, but that he acted with the specific intent of keeping the witness from testifying.
Commonwealth v. Gonsalves - August 29, 2005
Statements made in response to questioning by law enforcement agents are per se testimonial, except when the questioning is meant to secure a volatile scene or to establish the need for or provide medical care, and are inadmissible unless the declarant is available at trial or there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
In the Matter of a Grand Jury Subpoena - June 22, 2006
The spousal privilege set forth in c. 233, ��20, Second, does not apply to a witness summonsed to appear before a grand jury.
Commonwealth v. Guzman - March 29, 2006
The accord and satisfaction statute, c. 276, ��55, is constitutional and does not violate public policy, because it is a valid exercise of legislative authority. Prior to exercising discretion whether to dismiss a charge based upon the accord and satisfaction agreement, the judge must be informed what "satisfaction" has been received.
Commonwealth v. King - September 29, 2005
The SJC announced a new common law rule of evidence called the "first complaint" doctrine which revamps several components of what has been known as "fresh complaint" evidence. The new rule will be applied prospectively to cases tried after the issuance of the rescript in this case, which is expected to be October 27, 2005.
Commonwealth v. Lampron - March 19, 2004
This case is a must read before handling the next defense motion seeking the production of records not in the Commonwealth's possession or control.
Commonwealth v. Pagan - September 14, 2005
Article 12 requires that a defendant be indicted for (or complained against) and convicted of being a repeat offender before he can be subject to community parole supervision for life under G.L. c.265, ��45. Section 18 of chapter 275, which permits the Commonwealth to move for life time parole upon conviction of certain enumerated sex offenses, is unconstitutionally vague.
Commonwealth v. Tim T., A Juvenile - August 23, 2002
A judge may NOT place a defendant on pretrial probation, with dismissal at the end of the probationary period, over the Commonwealth's objection.
Davis v. Washington & Hammon v. Indiana - June 19, 2006
Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
Melendez - Diaz v. Massachusetts
The admission of a drug certification alone, without live witness testimony from the analyst, is a violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment Right to confront witnesses.
Van De Kamp v. Goldstein - January 26, 2009
A Prosecutor is absolutely immune from liability in civil suits when his actions are ��intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process�� and he is serving as ��an officer of the court.�� Absolute immunity extends to claims for failure to train and supervise prosecutors properly, as well as claims of inadequate information-system management.