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.
9 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 2002–2020 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. Millsgreen1 sentence2020Even absent this specific testimony, however, independent evidence that the gunshot wounds contained markings consistent with close- or intermediate-range gunfire was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the victims had been shot at close range. 8 The defendant contends, however, relying upon Commonwealth v. Mills, 400 Mass. 626, 627 (1987), that the evidence was insufficient because his intoxication and his mental state indicate that he lacked the mental capacity to form the intent to kill. | 1 | 1 |
Chen-Cheng Wang, AKA C.C. Wang, an Individual and Ex Rel. The United States of America v. Fmc Corporationgreen1 sentence2019Despite the description of the realtor's forensic analysis set out in his complaint, the relator's allegations in this case simply "repeats [the facts] the public already knows." Wang v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412, 1417 (9th Cir. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Nardigreen1 sentence2013Several years after Crawford, supra, we considered the admissibility of expert opinion and testimony to its basis in Com monwealth v. Nardi, 452 Mass. 379, 387-396 (2008) (Nardi). | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2012Justice Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in Melendez-Diaz , remarked one year before that decision, “I doubt many think that the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses cannot be waived by counsel.” Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242, 256 (2008) (Scalia, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rupnickgreen1 sentence2009See State v. Rupnick, 280 Kan. 720, 733 (2005) (appropriate to obtain warrant because exigency dissipated once computer was seized). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Conleygreen1 sentence2002Contrast Commonwealth v. Conley, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 385, 393 (1997) (ineffective assistance resulted where trial counsel neglected to ask for a forensic test, the results of which might have seriously undermined the Commonwealth’s case). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences2012Although the United States Supreme Court has not considered the specific question whether defense counsel may waive a defendant’s right to confront an analyst before introduction in evidence of a drug analysis certificate, the majority in Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 332 , found that “[d]efense attorneys and their clients will often stipulate to the nature of the substance [identified in a drug analysis certificate] . . . [without] insisting] on live testimony whose effect will be merely to highlight rather than cast doubt upon the forensic analysis.” The Court’s failure to mention the need for 2011Id. | 2 | 2011–2012 |
Commonwealth v. McDermott
green
1 sentence2017In McDermott , we explained that no advance approval was required for computer search methods because the magistrate issuing the warrant ‘“likely does not have the technical expertise to assess the propriety of a particular forensic analysis.” McDermott, 448 Mass. at 776 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2013To illustrate “the intersection between our common-law rules of evidence concerning expert testimony and the constitutional right of confrontation,” id. at 783 , we highlight several foundational cases decided in the wake of the Supreme Court’s monumental Sixth Amendment decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Crawford), 3 that concern a criminal defendant’s confrontation right in the context of expert opinion testimony that relies on a nontestifying analyst’s forensic test results. 2013Several years after Crawford, supra, we considered the admissibility of expert opinion and testimony to its basis in Com monwealth v. Nardi, 452 Mass. 379, 387-396 (2008) (Nardi). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 2715 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Freiberg v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence2013Indeed, the judge or officer issuing the search warrant likely does not have the technical expertise to assess the propriety of a particular forensic analysis.” Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Commonwealth v. Barbosa
green
1 sentence2013To illustrate “the intersection between our common-law rules of evidence concerning expert testimony and the constitutional right of confrontation,” id. at 783 , we highlight several foundational cases decided in the wake of the Supreme Court’s monumental Sixth Amendment decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Crawford), 3 that concern a criminal defendant’s confrontation right in the context of expert opinion testimony that relies on a nontestifying analyst’s forensic test results. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.