Lenox, MA
Appeals Lawyer at Lenox, MA
Practice Areas: Appeals
OUTCOME: My client's alimony judgment affirmed
In a case of first impression regarding the newly enacted Alimony Reform Act, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the Legislature intended the Act's retirement provision to have prospective applicatio ... n, and so the Act was held not applicable to modification of the alimony judgment.
OUTCOME: Judgment of conviction reversed
The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Defendant’s first degree murder conviction and held that the Defendant’s motion to suppress a secretly recorded conversation between him and an informant working ... with the police was erroneously denied. The Court held that the Bristol Superior Court should have excluded the recorded conversation at trial, and the Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case for a new trial without the evidence of the conversation recorded in violation of the wiretap statute.
OUTCOME: SJC upheld grant of suppression motion
In this case of first impression, the Supreme Judicial Court Court held that the strong or very strong odor of unburnt marijuana emanating from defendant's vehicle, standing alone, did not provide prob ... able cause for police officers to search defendant's automobile. The Court reasoned that such characterizations of odors as strong or weak are inherently subjective because what one person believes to be a powerful scent may fail to register as potently for another.
OUTCOME: SJC reversed denial of motion for DNA testing
In this case of first impression, the Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Plymouth Superior Court’s denial of DNA testing under the new forensic evidence statute, chapter 278A and remanded the case to ... the Superior Court. Rejecting all of the Commonwealth’s arguments, the SJC held that the Defendant demonstrated that the requested scientific analysis had the potential to result in evidence that was material to identification of the perpetrator of the crime; the motion provided information demonstrating that the evidence or biological material had not been subjected to the requested analysis; the standard used for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims did not apply for purposes of ruling on the 278A motion; the defendant's motion and accompanying affidavit made the requisite assertion of factual innocence necessary for hearing on motion; and the assertion of factual innocence necessary for hearing on motion did not require defendant to assert his innocence on every conceivable theory of guilt.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
