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 2 courts 1982–2025 1 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. Tavaresgreen1 sentence2025See Commonwealth v. Tavares, 385 Mass. 140, 152 , cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982). [5] At the pretrial motion hearing, trial counsel stated his intention not to "open any doors." The prosecutor assured the court that he had prepared the witness and told her "many times" to focus on the case at hand, not what happened in the past. [6] The defendant's ex-wife testified: "Yes, he moved out of the house because I felt he was in a really bad mental state and that -- I thought it was best that he wasn't around the children. | 1 | 1 |
Fisher v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2025See Commonwealth v. Tavares, 385 Mass. 140, 152 , cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982). [5] At the pretrial motion hearing, trial counsel stated his intention not to "open any doors." The prosecutor assured the court that he had prepared the witness and told her "many times" to focus on the case at hand, not what happened in the past. [6] The defendant's ex-wife testified: "Yes, he moved out of the house because I felt he was in a really bad mental state and that -- I thought it was best that he wasn't around the children. | 1 | 1 |
Waller v. Georgiagreen2 sentences2014Although the United States Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment right extends to certain pretrial proceedings, see Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 43 (1984) (Waller) (suppression hearings), and Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209,213 (2010) (jury voir dire), it has not held that it attaches to all pretrial proceedings. 4 To determine whether a particular pretrial proceeding is one to which the Sixth Amendment public trial right attaches, the inquiry “cannot be resolved solely on the label we give the event” but rather must be based on “considerations of experience and logic.” Press-Ent 2014See Waller, supra at 49-50 (remanding for public suppression hearing on those portions of hearing that need not be closed); United States v. Waters, 627 F.3d 345, 361 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting public trial right may have been vindicated by public availability of transcript). | 1 | 1 |
Presley v. Georgiagreen1 sentence2014Although the United States Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment right extends to certain pretrial proceedings, see Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 43 (1984) (Waller) (suppression hearings), and Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209,213 (2010) (jury voir dire), it has not held that it attaches to all pretrial proceedings. 4 To determine whether a particular pretrial proceeding is one to which the Sixth Amendment public trial right attaches, the inquiry “cannot be resolved solely on the label we give the event” but rather must be based on “considerations of experience and logic.” Press-Ent | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Walkergreen1 sentence2014Instead, consistent with his other findings, it is apparent that the judge used the phrase “not in session” to mean that the discussion with counsel took place before the pretrial motion hearing began and was administrative in nature, with no transcript or reporter being required. 3 Where, as here, a judge’s findings of fact are made after an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial, they “will be accepted if supported by the record.” Commonwealth v. Rosario, 460 Mass. 181, 195 (2011), quoting from Commonwealth v. Walker, 443 Mass. 213, 224 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Rosariogreen1 sentence2014Instead, consistent with his other findings, it is apparent that the judge used the phrase “not in session” to mean that the discussion with counsel took place before the pretrial motion hearing began and was administrative in nature, with no transcript or reporter being required. 3 Where, as here, a judge’s findings of fact are made after an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial, they “will be accepted if supported by the record.” Commonwealth v. Rosario, 460 Mass. 181, 195 (2011), quoting from Commonwealth v. Walker, 443 Mass. 213, 224 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Buckmangreen1 sentence2014See Commonwealth v. Buckman, 461 Mass. 24, 29 (2011), citing Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 1), 456 Mass. 94, 105 (2010) (Cohen [No. 1]). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Briana Watersgreen1 sentence2014See Waller, supra at 49-50 (remanding for public suppression hearing on those portions of hearing that need not be closed); United States v. Waters, 627 F.3d 345, 361 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting public trial right may have been vindicated by public availability of transcript). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Cohengreen1 sentence2014See Commonwealth v. Buckman, 461 Mass. 24, 29 (2011), citing Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 1), 456 Mass. 94, 105 (2010) (Cohen [No. 1]). | 1 | 1 |
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Riversidegreen1 sentence2014Although the United States Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment right extends to certain pretrial proceedings, see Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 43 (1984) (Waller) (suppression hearings), and Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209,213 (2010) (jury voir dire), it has not held that it attaches to all pretrial proceedings. 4 To determine whether a particular pretrial proceeding is one to which the Sixth Amendment public trial right attaches, the inquiry “cannot be resolved solely on the label we give the event” but rather must be based on “considerations of experience and logic.” Press-Ent | 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. Lampron
green
1 sentence2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Commonwealth v. Whelton
green
1 sentence2005Ibid. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence1988In an attempt to cast doubt on the defendant’s credibility, the prosecutor highlighted inconsistencies between the defendant’s *738 statements during a pretrial motion hearing and his testimony during trial regarding when he was informed of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Commonwealth v. Lopez
green
1 sentence1982The proper “purpose of a motion in limine is to prevent irrelevant, inadmissible or prejudi *324 cial matters from being admitted in evidence.” Commonwealth v. Lopez, 383 Mass. 497 , 500 n.2 (1981). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.