NO. SJC-10824 PURSUANT TO GLC 211, 5 3 FROM ... - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

een an ongoing problem, allowed the motion, in part; however, as a precondition, the hearing judge issued an unusual order requiring the Pro Se defendant to write a letter to the Commonwealth's witnesses, and give the letters to the prosecutor to review the contents, as a prerequisite, and the prosecutor would then transmit the letters to the witnesses whom the Pro Se defendant wanted to interview (R.A. "I&", no. 171). Standby counsel (Bruce Ferg) then advised the defendant to - not write any letters which the Common- wealth would be allowed to review beforc the letters were transmitted to the witnesses because it would be a direct violation of defendant's 6th amendment rights. On December 7, 2009, the Pro Se defendant filed a "Motion To Continue Trial Date, wherein on ground two he argued that he was 'I... not properly prepared for trial where he has been engaged in the process of interviewing the Commonwealth's witnesses and evidence before trial, " (R+A. "48"). The motion was denied (Muse, J.)(R.A. "14" , no. 185). On the same date, the prosecuting attorney I, citing four grounds, filed "Commonwealth List of Potential Witnesses, 14 I,
which, remarkably, contained a list of 21 witnesses (R.A. "49-50"). The Pro Se defendant strenguously objected and argued that the Commonwealth had manipulated the process for disclosure and access to its witnesses - for nearly two years, while at the same time with- holding the names and addresses of its witnesses until the day of trial, in violation of mandatory discovery. The Pro Se defendant further argued that where the court was forcing him to trial the next day (12/08/09), after having just received a list of 21 witnesses from the Commonwealth that day (12/07/09), would result in a "trial by ambush." The trial judge (Muse, J.) stated that the dcfen- dant's objection was "duly noted,"and he then threatened the defendant that if he appeared late for trial the next day, the court would revoke defendantls bail, and have him taken back into custody (R.A. "48"). All the while, the government maintained a constant surveillance of the Pro 5e defendant's movements and activities through GPS electronic moitoring and tracking. On December 8, 2009, the defendant filed II Defendant's Motion For Continuance Of Trial And II Waiver of Rule 36 Speedy Trial Right, citing 15
Page 1 and 2: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (1 of
Page 3 and 4: Case Laws Commonwealth v. Adkinson
Page 5 and 6: Case Laws Guiney v. Police Comm'r o
Page 7 and 8: Massachusetts Constitution Article
Page 9 and 10: I S S U E S P R E S E N T E D 1. WH
Page 11 and 12: STATEMENT OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS On F
Page 13 and 14: On September 8, 2009, while on bail
Page 15 and 16: STATEMENT aF FACTS On January 6, 20
Page 17 and 18: of bail whereas the defendant was a
Page 19 and 20: On September 8, and 18, 2009, the P
Page 21 and 22: that he was - not a convicted sex o
Page 23: else he would be setting himself up
Page 27 and 28: who threatened the defendant with a
Page 29 and 30: As a result of three months of cons
Page 31 and 32: phone call to the defendant from a
Page 33 and 34: A R G U M E N T S 1. WHERE A COURT
Page 35 and 36: A R G U M E N T S 2. WHERE PRETRIAL
Page 37 and 38: In Emelio E, V. Commonwealth, 453 M
Page 39 and 40: admitted to facts u€ficient for s
Page 41 and 42: constitutional danger, because it f
Page 43 and 44: defense); McKaskle v. Wigpins, 465
Page 45 and 46: Art. 14 Declaration of Rights, Mass
Page 47 and 48: Here, where Aldrich was released on
Page 49 and 50: R, Governmental GPS monitoring trac
Page 51 and 52: Here, in the non fiction, Aldrich n
Page 53 and 54: 3. WUERE DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO P
Page 55 and 56: of trial (R.A. "49-50"), in violati
Page 57 and 58: Thus, where the lower court incorre
Page 59 and 60: "52-62"), and out of fear and intim

NO. SJC-10824 PURSUANT TO GLC 211, 5 3 FROM ... - Mass Cases

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?