relevancy test in Massachusetts

2005The procedure that must be followed in order to obtain documents or records from a nonparty is set forth in rule 17 and that procedure has been recently explicated in the decisional law. 7 See Commonwealth v. Lampron, 441 Mass. 265, 268-271 (2004); Commonwealth v. Jansen, 444 Mass. 112, 116-117 (2005); Commonwealth v. Lam, 444 Mass. 224, 230-231 (2005).

2004Commonwealth v. Oliveira, 438 Mass. 325 , 339 n.15 (2002) (“[A] defendant does not have an unlimited right to summons ... documents in advance of trial, but may only do so after making a threshold showing of relevance”) . 2 “A defendant is required to make a factual showing that the documents sought are relevant and have evidentiary value to the defense.” Commonwealth v. Lampron, 441 Mass. 265, 269 (2004). 3 Documentary evidence is relevant if it has a rational tendency to prove or disprove an issue in the case.

2004Commonwealth v. Oliveira, 438 Mass. 325 , 339 n.15 (2002) (“[A] defendant does not have an unlimited right to summons ... documents in advance of trial, but may only do so after making a threshold showing of relevance”) . 2 “A defendant is required to make a factual showing that the documents sought are relevant and have evidentiary value to the defense.” Commonwealth v. Lampron, 441 Mass. 265, 269 (2004). 3 Documentary evidence is relevant if it has a rational tendency to prove or disprove an issue in the case.

2003Id. at 340 .

2023We are not persuaded by the defendants' continued insistence that all their alleged statements and conduct had "some relationship to the [contemplated] proceeding[s]." To the extent that the defendants urge this court to apply the relevancy test appearing in comment c of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 587, no Massachusetts court has fully 11 embraced the comment or its language.13 See Correllas v. Viveiros, 410 Mass. 314, 319-321 (1991) ("[s]tatements made in the course of a judicial proceeding which pertain to that proceeding" as well as "statements made by a witness or party during tria

2023See also Kobrin v. Gastfriend, 443 Mass. 327, 345-346 (2005); Gillette Co., 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 13As highlighted by the defendants, comment c to § 587 provides that, "[i]t is not necessary that the defamatory matter be relevant or material to any issue before the court.

2023We are not persuaded by the defendants' continued insistence that all their alleged statements and conduct had "some relationship to the [contemplated] proceeding[s]." To the extent that the defendants urge this court to apply the relevancy test appearing in comment c of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 587, no Massachusetts court has fully 11 embraced the comment or its language.13 See Correllas v. Viveiros, 410 Mass. 314, 319-321 (1991) ("[s]tatements made in the course of a judicial proceeding which pertain to that proceeding" as well as "statements made by a witness or party during tria

2023We are not persuaded by the defendants' continued insistence that all their alleged statements and conduct had "some relationship to the [contemplated] proceeding[s]." To the extent that the defendants urge this court to apply the relevancy test appearing in comment c of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 587, no Massachusetts court has fully 11 embraced the comment or its language.13 See Correllas v. Viveiros, 410 Mass. 314, 319-321 (1991) ("[s]tatements made in the course of a judicial proceeding which pertain to that proceeding" as well as "statements made by a witness or party during tria

2012Evid. § 702 & note, at 206 (2011). “[Ejxpert testimony may not be admitted to profile or describe the typical attributes of the perpetrators of crimes.” Commonwealth v. Roche, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 372, 380 (1998), quoting from Commonwealth v. Goetzendanner, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 637, 644 (1997). 3 The vice in such testimony is that criminal profile testimony “is nothing more than an expert’s opinion as to certain characteristics which are common to some or most of the individuals who commit particular crimes. [Such e]vidence . . . does not meet the relevancy test, because the mere fact that a defenda

2012Evid. § 702 & note, at 206 (2011). “[Ejxpert testimony may not be admitted to profile or describe the typical attributes of the perpetrators of crimes.” Commonwealth v. Roche, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 372, 380 (1998), quoting from Commonwealth v. Goetzendanner, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 637, 644 (1997). 3 The vice in such testimony is that criminal profile testimony “is nothing more than an expert’s opinion as to certain characteristics which are common to some or most of the individuals who commit particular crimes. [Such e]vidence . . . does not meet the relevancy test, because the mere fact that a defenda

2012Evid. § 702 & note, at 206 (2011). “[Ejxpert testimony may not be admitted to profile or describe the typical attributes of the perpetrators of crimes.” Commonwealth v. Roche, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 372, 380 (1998), quoting from Commonwealth v. Goetzendanner, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 637, 644 (1997). 3 The vice in such testimony is that criminal profile testimony “is nothing more than an expert’s opinion as to certain characteristics which are common to some or most of the individuals who commit particular crimes. [Such e]vidence . . . does not meet the relevancy test, because the mere fact that a defenda

2005The procedure that must be followed in order to obtain documents or records from a nonparty is set forth in rule 17 and that procedure has been recently explicated in the decisional law. 7 See Commonwealth v. Lampron, 441 Mass. 265, 268-271 (2004); Commonwealth v. Jansen, 444 Mass. 112, 116-117 (2005); Commonwealth v. Lam, 444 Mass. 224, 230-231 (2005).

2005The procedure that must be followed in order to obtain documents or records from a nonparty is set forth in rule 17 and that procedure has been recently explicated in the decisional law. 7 See Commonwealth v. Lampron, 441 Mass. 265, 268-271 (2004); Commonwealth v. Jansen, 444 Mass. 112, 116-117 (2005); Commonwealth v. Lam, 444 Mass. 224, 230-231 (2005).

2003Accord Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 118 (1964) (interpreting the corresponding federal rule and noting that “(t]he specific requirement of good cause would be meaningless if good cause could be sufficiently established by merely showing that the desired materials are relevant, for the relevancy standard has already been imposed by rule 26(b)”).

1999See Commonwealth v. Tripolone, 425 Mass. 487, 489 (1997); Commonwealth v. Fuller, 423 Mass. 216, 226 (1996); see also Commonwealth v. Pare, 427 Mass. 427, 429 (1998).

1999See Commonwealth v. Tripolone, 425 Mass. 487, 489 (1997); Commonwealth v. Fuller, 423 Mass. 216, 226 (1996); see also Commonwealth v. Pare, 427 Mass. 427, 429 (1998).

1999See Commonwealth v. Tripolone, 425 Mass. 487, 489 (1997); Commonwealth v. Fuller, 423 Mass. 216, 226 (1996); see also Commonwealth v. Pare, 427 Mass. 427, 429 (1998).

1999See Commonwealth v. Jackson, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 666, 671 (1998).

1999Evidence of a ‘child battering profile’ does not meet the relevancy test, because the mere fact that a defendant fits the profile does not tend to prove that a particular defendant physically abused the victim.” Commonwealth v. Day, 409 Mass. 719, 723 (1991).

1991See, e.g., *385 United States v. Hernandez-Cuartas, 111 F.2d 552, 555 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Beltran-Rios, 878 F.2d 1208, 1210-1211 (9th Cir. 1989).

1991See State v. Brown, 370 So. 2d 547, 554 (La. 1979) (drug courier profile “does not tend to prove that this defendant is guilty of the offense charged, nor does it explain any relevant fact with regard to guilt or innocence”); Duley v. State, 56 Md.

1991See State v. Brown, 370 So. 2d 547, 554 (La. 1979) (drug courier profile “does not tend to prove that this defendant is guilty of the offense charged, nor does it explain any relevant fact with regard to guilt or innocence”); Duley v. State, 56 Md.

1985See Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 352 Mass. 218, 231 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 916 (1967), S. C. 364 Mass. 211 (1973); Commonwealth v. Caine, 366 Mass. 366, 369 (1974); Liacos, op. cit. at 144. (c) The defendants’ claims of prosecutorial misconduct need not be addressed.

1985See Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 352 Mass. 218, 231 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 916 (1967), S. C. 364 Mass. 211 (1973); Commonwealth v. Caine, 366 Mass. 366, 369 (1974); Liacos, op. cit. at 144. (c) The defendants’ claims of prosecutorial misconduct need not be addressed.

1985See Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 352 Mass. 218, 231 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 916 (1967), S. C. 364 Mass. 211 (1973); Commonwealth v. Caine, 366 Mass. 366, 369 (1974); Liacos, op. cit. at 144. (c) The defendants’ claims of prosecutorial misconduct need not be addressed.

1985See Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 352 Mass. 218, 231 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 916 (1967), S. C. 364 Mass. 211 (1973); Commonwealth v. Caine, 366 Mass. 366, 369 (1974); Liacos, op. cit. at 144. (c) The defendants’ claims of prosecutorial misconduct need not be addressed.