The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court approved the decision of a chief administrator to deny employment to a candidate whose family member, who is also an employee of the Probation Department, who already had six family members working for the Probation Department would not be allowed a seventh relative to be employed by the department. Please read the Boston Globe Article below.
-Attorney Gomes tgomeslaw.com
SJC takes stand against nepotism in court hiring decisions
E-mail|Link|Comments (39)August 30, 2010 10:59 AM
By Scott Allen, Globe Staff
The Supreme Judicial Court today upheld the power of the state's chief administrative judge to rescind a Probation Department job offer to an applicant who already had six relatives working in the court system.
The court said that the job applicant, Stephen P. Anzalone Jr., had no right to a job in probation, an agency now under investigation over allegations of widespread political favoritism.
Probation Commissioner John J. "Jack" O'Brien wanted to hire Anzalone, the son of O'Brien's college football teammate, as a probation officer in August 2007. But the offer was subject to the approval of Chief Justice for Administration Robert Mulligan. O'Brien and Mulligan have sparred for years over O'Brien's hiring choices and, when Mulligan learned of Anzalone's extensive family ties among court employees, he vetoed O'Brien's job offer.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Court Reverses Defendant's Conviction For Open and Gross Conduct
The Massachusetts Appeals Court reverses the defendant's conviction for open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior on the basis that his genitals and/or buttocks were not shown to the victim. Please read the decision below.
-Attorney Gomes tgomeslaw.com
NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
COMMONWEALTH vs. Raymond L. BLACKMER, III.
No. 08-P-1994.
December 4, 2009. - August 26, 2010.
Lewdness. Open and Gross Lewdness and Lascivious Behavior. Practice, Criminal, Required finding, Instructions to jury. Evidence, Prior misconduct, Identity, Relevancy and materiality.
INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 27, 2007.
The cases were tried before Bertha D. Josephson, J.
Nona E. Walker, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant.
Steven Greenbaum, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Present: Rapoza, C.J., Kafker, & Hanlon, JJ.
HANLON, J.
The defendant appeals from his conviction after a Superior Court jury trial of one count of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, G.L. c. 272, § 16, and one count of being lewd, wanton, and lascivious in behavior, G.L. c. 272, § 53, for an incident that occurred on the Smith College campus. We are asked to consider whether public masturbation, without exposure of the defendant's genitalia or buttocks, is punishable under G.L. c. 272, § 16. Because we hold that it is not, we reverse the defendant's conviction for open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior only, and affirm his conviction for being lewd, wanton, and lascivious in behavior.
Background. The jury would have been warranted in finding the following facts. On February 15, 2007, a student at Smith College, a women's college in Northampton, was crossing the street at an intersection near the campus. She noticed a dark green van, which she described as being the same model as her parents' car, a Dodge Caravan, parked awkwardly and holding up traffic in a crosswalk on the other side of the intersection. As the student approached the car, she noticed the driver was moving "his arm and hand ... up and down against his groin." He appeared to be masturbating; however, she did not observe that either his genitals or buttocks were exposed. [FN1]
-Attorney Gomes tgomeslaw.com
NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
COMMONWEALTH vs. Raymond L. BLACKMER, III.
No. 08-P-1994.
December 4, 2009. - August 26, 2010.
Lewdness. Open and Gross Lewdness and Lascivious Behavior. Practice, Criminal, Required finding, Instructions to jury. Evidence, Prior misconduct, Identity, Relevancy and materiality.
INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 27, 2007.
The cases were tried before Bertha D. Josephson, J.
Nona E. Walker, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant.
Steven Greenbaum, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Present: Rapoza, C.J., Kafker, & Hanlon, JJ.
HANLON, J.
The defendant appeals from his conviction after a Superior Court jury trial of one count of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, G.L. c. 272, § 16, and one count of being lewd, wanton, and lascivious in behavior, G.L. c. 272, § 53, for an incident that occurred on the Smith College campus. We are asked to consider whether public masturbation, without exposure of the defendant's genitalia or buttocks, is punishable under G.L. c. 272, § 16. Because we hold that it is not, we reverse the defendant's conviction for open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior only, and affirm his conviction for being lewd, wanton, and lascivious in behavior.
Background. The jury would have been warranted in finding the following facts. On February 15, 2007, a student at Smith College, a women's college in Northampton, was crossing the street at an intersection near the campus. She noticed a dark green van, which she described as being the same model as her parents' car, a Dodge Caravan, parked awkwardly and holding up traffic in a crosswalk on the other side of the intersection. As the student approached the car, she noticed the driver was moving "his arm and hand ... up and down against his groin." He appeared to be masturbating; however, she did not observe that either his genitals or buttocks were exposed. [FN1]
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Top Eight Things to Do If You're Suspected of OUI in Massachusetts
Here is a list of things I recommend you do if you're stopped by the police and suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol or OUI in Massachusetts:
1. Always be respectful to the police officer or state trooper that has stopped your vehicle.
2. Give the officer or state trooper your driver's license and registration.
3. Do not admit to drinking any alcohol.
4. Do not answer any questions asked by the officer or trooper, simply state that you would like to speak with your attorney before answering any questions.
5. Do not perform any field sobriety tests.* Contrary to popular belief, you do have a right to refuse to perform these tests.
6. Do not give the officer any other evidence that can be used against you at trial, i.e. leave the scene of an accident, rude or obnoxious behavior, yelling and screaming, empty alcohol bottles in your car, etc.
7. Do NOT take the breathalyzer test.* Even if you do all of the six things listed above, you still may have a chance for a not guilty at trial. However, a breathalyzer result over .08 may cause problems at trial.
8. Contact Attorney Gomes so that she may go to the Arraignment with you. This will be your first court appearance and you should have your attorney present.
*If you have consumed 1-2 alcoholic beverages prior to being stopped by the police you must use your own discretion as to whether you will pass the field sobriety and breathalyzer tests. Please keep in mind that a breathalyzer test refusal will result in a loss of your driver's license for 180 days. However, it is likely that your trial will take place before the 180 days has elapsed.
Call an experienced Massachusetts OUI attorney now at (617) 524-6600.
1. Always be respectful to the police officer or state trooper that has stopped your vehicle.
2. Give the officer or state trooper your driver's license and registration.
3. Do not admit to drinking any alcohol.
4. Do not answer any questions asked by the officer or trooper, simply state that you would like to speak with your attorney before answering any questions.
5. Do not perform any field sobriety tests.* Contrary to popular belief, you do have a right to refuse to perform these tests.
6. Do not give the officer any other evidence that can be used against you at trial, i.e. leave the scene of an accident, rude or obnoxious behavior, yelling and screaming, empty alcohol bottles in your car, etc.
7. Do NOT take the breathalyzer test.* Even if you do all of the six things listed above, you still may have a chance for a not guilty at trial. However, a breathalyzer result over .08 may cause problems at trial.
8. Contact Attorney Gomes so that she may go to the Arraignment with you. This will be your first court appearance and you should have your attorney present.
*If you have consumed 1-2 alcoholic beverages prior to being stopped by the police you must use your own discretion as to whether you will pass the field sobriety and breathalyzer tests. Please keep in mind that a breathalyzer test refusal will result in a loss of your driver's license for 180 days. However, it is likely that your trial will take place before the 180 days has elapsed.
Call an experienced Massachusetts OUI attorney now at (617) 524-6600.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Defendant Granted New Trial For Improper Jury Instructions in Murder Case
The Massachusetts Supreme Court allowed the defendant's motion for a new trial due to the fact that the jury was given an improper jury instruction regarding the defendant's mental illness and her alcohol consumption. Please read the decision below.
-Attorney Gomes (tgomeslaw.com)
NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
COMMONWEALTH vs. Sheila BERRY.
No. SJC-10397.
February 12, 2010. - August 23, 2010.
Homicide. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Instructions to jury. Insanity. Intoxication. Mental Impairment. Evidence, Intoxication, Insanity.
INDICTMENT found and returned in the Superior Court Department on January 24, 2003.
The case was tried before Paul E. Troy, J.
Eric S. Brandt, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant.
Robert C. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Present: Marshall, C.J., Spina, Cowin, Botsford, & Gants, JJ.
SPINA, J.
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. [FN1] The victim was an acquaintance. The defendant appeals from her conviction, arguing that the judgment should be reversed because the judge's instruction failed to inform the jury that the defendant was not criminally responsible if her use of alcohol activated her mental illness, and the instruction was prejudicially tilted in favor of the Commonwealth; and that this court should exercise its power under G.L. c. 278, § 33E, to grant the defendant a new trial or reduce the degree of guilt to murder in the second degree in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's mental disease and defect and her lack of criminal responsibility. We conclude that the instruction given to the jury created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial.
1. Background. The defendant had dinner with a friend on August 14, 2002. They spent about two hours together, during which time she had two to three glasses of rum. She testified that she could "feel the effects of the alcohol." She testified that, in general, alcohol "made me laugh." That evening, the defendant returned to her apartment, then went to the apartment of a friend, Deanna Marshall, with whom she had spent the afternoon. From there she walked to a small market in the neighborhood.
-Attorney Gomes (tgomeslaw.com)
NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
Homicide. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Instructions to jury. Insanity. Intoxication. Mental Impairment. Evidence, Intoxication, Insanity.
INDICTMENT found and returned in the Superior Court Department on January 24, 2003.
The case was tried before Paul E. Troy, J.
Eric S. Brandt, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant.
Robert C. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Present: Marshall, C.J., Spina, Cowin, Botsford, & Gants, JJ.
SPINA, J.
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. [FN1] The victim was an acquaintance. The defendant appeals from her conviction, arguing that the judgment should be reversed because the judge's instruction failed to inform the jury that the defendant was not criminally responsible if her use of alcohol activated her mental illness, and the instruction was prejudicially tilted in favor of the Commonwealth; and that this court should exercise its power under G.L. c. 278, § 33E, to grant the defendant a new trial or reduce the degree of guilt to murder in the second degree in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's mental disease and defect and her lack of criminal responsibility. We conclude that the instruction given to the jury created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial.
1. Background. The defendant had dinner with a friend on August 14, 2002. They spent about two hours together, during which time she had two to three glasses of rum. She testified that she could "feel the effects of the alcohol." She testified that, in general, alcohol "made me laugh." That evening, the defendant returned to her apartment, then went to the apartment of a friend, Deanna Marshall, with whom she had spent the afternoon. From there she walked to a small market in the neighborhood.
Defendant Granted New Trial in Murder Case
The Massachusetts Appeals Court allowed the defendant's motion for a new trial due to the fact that her family members were denied access to the courtroom during jury selection. Please read the decision below.
-Attorney Gomes (tgomeslaw.com)
NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
COMMONWEALTH vs. Donna WOLCOTT.
No. 08-P-1047.
December 10, 2009. - August 25, 2010.
Homicide. Solicitation to Commit Felony. Practice, Criminal, Public trial, Instructions to jury, New trial. Constitutional Law, Public trial. Accessory and Principal. Evidence, Prior misconduct, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement.
INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 21, 2006.
The cases were tried before C. Jeffrey Kinder, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on August 14, 2008, was heard by him.
Michael J. Fellows for the defendant.
Marcia B. Julian, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Present: Mills, Katzmann, & Fecteau, JJ.
KATZMANN, J.
The defendant, Donna Wolcott, appeals her convictions by a Superior Court jury for solicitation to commit a felony (murder), and two violations of abuse prevention orders. Informed by recent United States Supreme Court and Supreme Judicial Court decisions not available to the careful Superior Court judge, we reverse the order denying the motion for new trial on the grounds that an unconstitutional closure of the court room took place. In light of the remand to Superior Court, we address and uphold the judge's solicitation instruction, and various evidentiary rulings.
Background. We summarize the facts that the jury could have found as follows, and reserve the recitation of certain facts relevant to the discussion below. In March, 2006, Donna Wolcott told a number of people that she had grown unhappy in her marriage. Beyond that, she also asked a coworker, Jill Scibelli, whether her husband had contacts with the "Scibelli" crime family and said that she was "nervous" but "had money" and needed to get rid of a "problem."
-Attorney Gomes (tgomeslaw.com)
NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
Homicide. Solicitation to Commit Felony. Practice, Criminal, Public trial, Instructions to jury, New trial. Constitutional Law, Public trial. Accessory and Principal. Evidence, Prior misconduct, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement.
INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 21, 2006.
The cases were tried before C. Jeffrey Kinder, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on August 14, 2008, was heard by him.
Michael J. Fellows for the defendant.
Marcia B. Julian, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Present: Mills, Katzmann, & Fecteau, JJ.
KATZMANN, J.
The defendant, Donna Wolcott, appeals her convictions by a Superior Court jury for solicitation to commit a felony (murder), and two violations of abuse prevention orders. Informed by recent United States Supreme Court and Supreme Judicial Court decisions not available to the careful Superior Court judge, we reverse the order denying the motion for new trial on the grounds that an unconstitutional closure of the court room took place. In light of the remand to Superior Court, we address and uphold the judge's solicitation instruction, and various evidentiary rulings.
Background. We summarize the facts that the jury could have found as follows, and reserve the recitation of certain facts relevant to the discussion below. In March, 2006, Donna Wolcott told a number of people that she had grown unhappy in her marriage. Beyond that, she also asked a coworker, Jill Scibelli, whether her husband had contacts with the "Scibelli" crime family and said that she was "nervous" but "had money" and needed to get rid of a "problem."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)