NO. SJC-10824 PURSUANT TO GLC 211, 5 3 FROM ... - Mass Cases
NO. SJC-10824 PURSUANT TO GLC 211, 5 3 FROM ... - Mass Cases NO. SJC-10824 PURSUANT TO GLC 211, 5 3 FROM ... - Mass Cases
A. ’ Denial of Access to Witncsses Behind the smoke and mirrors, the facts of this case (p. 5-24) clearly show that the govern- ment’s real purpose in attaching a GPS device to Aldrich was - not done for public safety pursuant to C.L.C. 265, 5 47, but moreso as an electronic tether to monitor Aldrich’s movements and activities so as to systematically exclude Aldrich from access to the government‘s witnesses (R.A. “44-46“), which in effect, cordon off the witnesses from the defense and denied Aldrich a fair trial in violation of his Sixth Amendment right. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967)(presumpton of prejudice); Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)(fundamental to the Sixth Amendment is the “calling and interrogation of favorable witnesses.”); and United States v. Bailey, 834 F.2d. 218 (1st cir 1987)(denial of access to witnesses within government control implicates constitutionally protected rights. Thus relief must be granted unless it can be said that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). Here, Aldrich was substantially prejudiced and unable t o prepare a defense for unknown witnesses where the government withheld the names and addresses of its witnesses for neary - two years until the day 44
of trial (R.A. "49-50"), in violation of Mass.R. Crim.P. 14(a)(l)(iv), la/ which resulted in a "trial by ambush,' i n violation of Aldrich's constitutional rights under both the Sixth Amend- ment and Art. 12. Commonwealth V. Taylor, 455 Mass. 372 (2009); Commonwealth v. Balliro , 349 Mass. 505, 516 (1965)(Witnesses belong neither to the Common- wealth nor to the defence. They are not partisans and should be available to both parties in the preparation of their cases); Commonwealth v. Durham, 446 Mass. 212, 218-219 (2005)(withholding the name of a "witness who is certain to be called to testify would undermine the discovery rules and allow attorneys to return to trial by ambush'?; and Commonwealth v. Adkinson, 442 Mass. 410, 416 (2004). Thus, where Aldrich's fundamental constitutional rights were violated (a presumption of prejudice) relief must be granted. United States V. Bailey, 834 F.2d. 218 (1st cir. 1987); Cornonwealth v. St. Pierre, 377Mass650 (1979). B. Denial of Access to Witnesses Ry Written Consent Requirement It was an "abqse of discretion", "plain e,rror", . . I ll/ Mas6.R.Crirn.P. 14(a)(l)(iv): "The names, : ' . addreses, .and dates of birth of ,the Common- wealth's witnesses other than law enforCement witnesses." See and compare Commonwealth v. Rollins, 441 Mass. 114 (2004](continuance to secure witnesses); and Commonwealth V. Bohanon, 385 Mass. 733 (1982); Commonwealth v. Rivera, 424 Mass. 266 (1996). 45
- 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 and 24: else he would be setting himself up
- Page 25 and 26: which, remarkably, contained a list
- 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: 3. WUERE DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO P
- Page 57 and 58: Thus, where the lower court incorre
- Page 59 and 60: "52-62"), and out of fear and intim
A. ’ Denial of Access to Witncsses<br />
Behind the smoke and mirrors, the facts of<br />
this case (p. 5-24) clearly show that the govern-<br />
ment’s real purpose in attaching a GPS device to<br />
Aldrich was - not done for public safety pursuant<br />
to C.L.C. 265, 5 47, but moreso as an electronic<br />
tether to monitor Aldrich’s movements and activities<br />
so as to systematically exclude Aldrich from access<br />
to the government‘s witnesses (R.A. “44-46“), which<br />
in effect, cordon off the witnesses from the defense<br />
and denied Aldrich a fair trial in violation of his<br />
Sixth Amendment right. Chapman v. California, 386<br />
U.S. 18 (1967)(presumpton of prejudice); Faretta v.<br />
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)(fundamental to the<br />
Sixth Amendment is the “calling and interrogation<br />
of favorable witnesses.”); and United States v.<br />
Bailey, 834 F.2d. 218 (1st cir 1987)(denial of access<br />
to witnesses within government control implicates<br />
constitutionally protected rights. Thus relief must<br />
be granted unless it can be said that the error was<br />
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).<br />
Here, Aldrich was substantially prejudiced and<br />
unable t o prepare a defense for unknown witnesses<br />
where the government withheld the names and addresses<br />
of its witnesses for neary - two years until the day<br />
44
Change language