Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1977–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Myers v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2013But in Myers , we went on to declare that the “minimum quantum of evidence required by this bind-over standard is more than that for probable cause for arrest but less than would ‘prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. at 850 , quoting People v. Bieber, 100 N.Y.S.2d 821 , 823 (N.Y.C. 2003The “directed verdict” standard used in a bind-over hearing, as articulated in Myers v. Commonwealth, 363 Mass. 843, 850 (1973), is “whether there is enough credible evidence to send the case to the jury.” 5 Id. | 3 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Blanchettegreen2 sentences2017Though the Commonwealth's evidence is not free from weakness, and though the defendant's counsel ably illustrated those weaknesses through cross-examination of the expert at the probable cause hearing and in argument on appeal in this court, viewed as a whole the Commonwealth's evidence "is not so incredible, insubstantial, or otherwise of such a quality that no reasonable person could rely on it to conclude that the Commonwealth had met its burden of proof." Ibid., quoting from Blanchette, 54 Mass. App. Ct. at 175 . 2003“What this unavoidably entails for the hearing judge is that she make some assessment of the credibility of the evidence that is presented when making the determination as to whether sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Blanchette, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 165, 173 (2002). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Brunogreen1 sentence2003In Commonwealth v. Bruno, 432 Mass. 489, 510 (2000), we noted that “[t]he § 12 (c) . . . hearing is more like [a] bind-over hearing, with its formal requirements and adversary nature” than an ex parte grand jury proceeding. 4 Consequently, we concluded that the “directed verdict” standard appropriate to a bind-over hearing was “appropriate to this type of proceeding,” not the “probable cause to arrest” standard applicable to a grand jury proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. O'DELLgreen1 sentence2000We have held that the standard of proof in grand jury proceedings is the arrest standard, see Commonwealth v. O’Dell, 392 Mass. 445, 451 (1984), but that the directed verdict standard applies to a bind-over hearing, Myers v. Commonwealth, supra. Both proceedings are preliminary to trial, and both look to a common end: holding a defendant for trial. | 1 | 1 |
Richmond Bros. v. City of Quincygreen1 sentence1978Commonwealth v. Stewart, 361 Mass. 857, 858 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Reese
green
2 sentences2017So central is the qualified examiner role that the Commonwealth cannot meet its burden at a trial on sexual dangerousness unless a qualified examiner opines that the defendant is sexually dangerous, even if another expert opines 4 assessing the credibility of expert witnesses who will not yet have access to the most important sources of information in the case at the time they are called to testify, must act with even more restraint than a judge assessing the credibility of Commonwealth witnesses in the context of a bind-over hearing." Reese, supra at 524 . 2011However, the hearing judge, “in assessing the credibility of expert witnesses," is to “act with even more restraint than a judge assessing the credibility of Commonwealth witnesses in the context of a bind-over hearing,” because expert witnesses “will not yet have access to the most important sources of information in the case at the time they are called to testify . . .” Reese, 438 Mass. at 523-24 . | 2 | 2011–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Bougas
green
1 sentence2008In Commonwealth v. Bougas, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 368, 372 , rev. den., 440 Mass. 1109 (2003), the Appeals Court observed that “Massachusetts treats the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense that is waived if not raised.” (Citations omitted.) While this case was in the District Court, both prior to and subsequent to the bind-over hearing, the defendant actively participated in negotiations with the Commonwealth that were designed to lead to a disposition of his case that would avoid the potential for a state prison sentence. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.