seven factors in Massachusetts

2011The seven factors or “guideposts” set forth in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-169 (1963), for evaluating the nature of a sanction are whether (1) it involves an affirmative disability or restraint; (2) it has historically been regarded as a punishment; (3) it comes into play only on a finding of scienter; (4) its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment — retribution and deterrence; (5) the behavior to which it applies is already a crime; (6) an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it; and (7) it appears excessive in rel

2009In Smith v. Doe, supra, the United States Supreme Court, in analyzing the Alaska sex offender registration law, referred to the seven factors listed in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 168-169 (Mendoza-Martinez factors), as “useful guideposts” in determining whether a sanction is punitive in effect.

2026In terms of the seven factors that the Supreme Judicial Court has said a judge may consider in making the assessment about reliability, 2 we agree with both the judge and the Commonwealth that all point in the direction of reliability. 2 "In assessing whether the hearsay evidence is reliable, a hearing judge may consider (1) whether the evidence is based on personal knowledge or direct observation; (2) whether the evidence, if based on direct observation, was recorded close in time to the events in question; (3) the level of factual detail; (4) whether the statements are internally consistent;

2023He cited six of the seven factors discussed in Hartfield, supra, in support of his conclusion.

2009Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. at 97 , quoting Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997).

2008See Commonwealth v. Cunneen, 389 Mass. 216, 227 (1983).