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 2 courts 1974–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Haraldstadgreen1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. Haraldstad , 16 Mass. App. Ct. 565 , 568 (1983) (noting that exploitation of excluded evidence is "fundamentally unfair"). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hoppingreen1 sentence2000See generally Commonwealth v. Hoppin, 387 Mass. 25, 31 (1982) (delay in giving corrective instructions vitiated corrective effect). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Santoligreen1 sentence1999In Commonwealth v. Santoli, 424 Mass. 837, 845 (1997), the court held that, “in cases tried hereafter,” the language on strength of the identification should be omitted from the standard instruction concerning eyewitness testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Goldstein v. Gontarzgreen2 sentences1989See Goldstein v. Gontarz, 364 Mass. 800, 811-812 (1974) (“[n]or do we think the defendants were required to apply for a corrective instruction after the judge had twice ruled flatly against them”), and cases cited. 1989See Goldstein v. Gontarz, 364 Mass. 800, 811-812 (1974) ("[n]or do we think the defendants were required to apply for a corrective instruction after the judge had twice ruled flatly against them"), and cases cited. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Rogersgreen1 sentence1980“The decision to use a corrective instruction rather than to allow the defendant’s motionfs] for a mistrial was within the judge’s discretion.” Commonwealth v. Rogers, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 646, 651 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Freemangreen1 sentence1980See Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 377 Mass. 772, 778-779 (1979), and Commonwealth v. Freeman, 352 Mass. 556, 564 (1967). 14 The corrective instruction was muddied somewhat by an initial remark that the defendant’s statement of intention would not prove that he was at the MBTA station on September 23, leaving the possibility that it might prove his presence on some other date. 15 The judge did not admit the picture, evidently for fear of the effect of a “mug” picture on the triers even as it might be “sanitized.” 16 On retrial the prosecution would also do well to avoid anticipating the judge’s inst | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. O'BRIENgreen1 sentence1980See Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 377 Mass. 772, 778-779 (1979), and Commonwealth v. Freeman, 352 Mass. 556, 564 (1967). 14 The corrective instruction was muddied somewhat by an initial remark that the defendant’s statement of intention would not prove that he was at the MBTA station on September 23, leaving the possibility that it might prove his presence on some other date. 15 The judge did not admit the picture, evidently for fear of the effect of a “mug” picture on the triers even as it might be “sanitized.” 16 On retrial the prosecution would also do well to avoid anticipating the judge’s inst | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Sandlergreen1 sentence1979Commonwealth v. Sandler, 368 Mass. 729, 734-735 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Pettiegreen1 sentence1979See Commonwealth v. Pettie, 363 Mass. 836, 839-842 (1973). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Doherty v. Levinegreen2 sentences1974Doherty v. Levine, 278 Mass. 418, 420 (1932). 1974Doherty v. Levine, 278 Mass. 418, 420 (1932). | 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. Kozec
green
1 sentence2017The judge, however, gave a corrective instruction. 12 Where there is an improper argument, “we must and do recognize that closing argument is identified as argument, the jury understands that, instructions from the judge inform the jury that closing argument is not evidence, and instructions may mitigate any prejudice in the final argument.” Kozec, 399 Mass. at 517 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.