Ad
related to: massachusetts motion to suppress
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, defense counsel orally amended the challenge to include an attack on the veracity of the warrant affidavit; he also specifically requested the right to call as witnesses Detective Brooks, Wesley Lucas of the Youth Center, and James D. Morrison, formerly of the Youth Center.Counsel asserted that Lucas ...
In the United States, the motion to suppress stems from the exclusionary rule.As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Simmons v. United States: "In order to effectuate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, this Court long ago conferred upon defendants in federal prosecutions the right, upon motion and proof, to have excluded from trial evidence which ...
A motion in limine is distinct from a motion for a protective order, which is a request to prevent the discovery of evidence, and a motion to suppress, which can be raised by the defense in American criminal trials to prevent the admission of evidence that was obtained unconstitutionally.
It was a busy week for Sen. Bob Menendez, his wife and three New Jersey businessmen charged alongside him with bribery offenses in September. Menendez made motions to suppress evidence, while the ...
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. [7] Citing District of Columbia v.Heller [8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago, [9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding ...
The exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing.. The law in force at the time of the police action, not the time of the attempt to introduce the evidence, controls whether the action is illegal for exclusionary rule purposes.
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. [2]
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court traces its history back to the high court of the British Province of Massachusetts Bay, which was chartered in 1692.Under the terms of that charter, Governor Sir William Phips established the Superior Court of Judicature as the province's local court of last resort (some of the court's decisions could be appealed to courts in England).
Ad
related to: massachusetts motion to suppress