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.
6 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1940–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bullcoming v. New Mexicogreen2 sentences2013Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705, 2709, 2714-2717 (2011) (Bullcoming). 2011The defendant argues that in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), and Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011), the introduction of the DNA test results through a lab supervisor, rather than the analyst who performed the tests, violated his confrontation clause rights. | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Martingreen1 sentence2017We also concluded that, even though there was no indication that any prosecutor knew of her egregious misconduct, id. at 350 n.7, her misconduct is "attributable to the government" for purposes of a motion for a new trial, id. at 350 & n.7, because as a primary and secondary chemist she "participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case" and "reported to the prosecutor's office concerning the case." Id. at 349 , quoting Commonwealth v. Martin, 427 Mass. 816, 824 (1998). 11 We also recognized the dilemma that a defendant would face in attempting to prove that the laboratory analysis i | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barry v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2018Cf. Barry , 390 Mass. at 292 , 455 N.E.2d 437 ("once [the Commonwealth] establishes that an act or event triggers an excludable period of time [under rule 36 (b) (2) ], the exclusion of the period is automatic"). 2018Cf. Barry , 390 Mass. at 292 , 455 N.E.2d 437 ("once [the Commonwealth] establishes that an act or event triggers an excludable period of time [under rule 36 (b) (2) ], the exclusion of the period is automatic"). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2011The defendant argues that in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), and Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011), the introduction of the DNA test results through a lab supervisor, rather than the analyst who performed the tests, violated his confrontation clause rights. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence2011The defendant argues that in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), and Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011), the introduction of the DNA test results through a lab supervisor, rather than the analyst who performed the tests, violated his confrontation clause rights. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Commonwealth v. Sitko
neutral
1 sentence1993A district attorney is required to state the reasons for the nolle prosequi “to protect the public’s interest in the integrity of the prosecutor’s decision.” Commonwealth v. Sitko, 372 Mass. 305 , 309 n.2 (1977), S.C., 379 Mass. 921 (1980). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Commonwealth v. Sitko
green
1 sentence1993A district attorney is required to state the reasons for the nolle prosequi “to protect the public’s interest in the integrity of the prosecutor’s decision.” Commonwealth v. Sitko, 372 Mass. 305 , 309 n.2 (1977), S.C., 379 Mass. 921 (1980). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Borucki v. MacKenzie Brothers Co., Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1940Co., 125 Conn. 92 , cited in the majority opinion, the defendant offered in evidence the original hospital records pertaining to the plaintiff as a patient; also, for the purpose of showing what analysis of the uneaten portion of the liverwurst disclosed, it offered the testimony of a state chemist from the laboratory where the analysis was made, who identified a record as the original kept by the laboratory. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
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.