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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and a clear violation of Aldrich's confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment where the trial judge arbitrarily imposed a written consent requirement upon hldrich which required that Aldrich had to write letters to the witnesses, whichcontents had to be reviewed and approved by the government before being transmitted to the witnesses (R.A. "14", no. 171). Crawford V. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation clause applied to "witnesses" against an accused); Commonwealth V. Ralliro, 349 Mass. 505 (1965); Commonwealth v. Taylor, 455 Mass. 372 (2009); dommonwealth.v..Durham;~446.Mass. .212.(2005); and see Commonwealth v. Adkinson,, 442 Mass. (2004) - There is no Massachusetts case on point which 'establishes a "written consent requirement," and rightfully so because such a req'uirernent would operate as an obstacle to investigation . of witnesses, and unconstitutionally create' an unobstructed one- sided access to w'itnesses by the .government, violating fundamental due process rights guaranteed t o an accused under the Fouteenth Amendment and Art. 12: See and compare State v. MurtaEh, Alaska, No. 5-11988/12007, 10/26/07)(The state high court held that "the advice and written-consent provisions unconstitutionally interfere with defend'ants' investigations ... by erecting needless practicial obstacles to investigations, and by being pverbroad). (Addendum, p. 13-44). 46
Thus, where the lower court incorrectly applied the sex offender GPS statute to Aldrich, despite the fact that Aldrich was - not a convicted sex offender; there were - no sexual assault victims or children involved (G.L.c. 258B, S 3(m)) 12/; I no allegations of threats or intimidation to victims and witnesses (G.L.c. 268, 5 13B); and I no allegations of privileged communications (G.L.c. 233, 55 20Y and 20K); there was a substantive violation of Aldrich's substantial constitutional rights to due process and the confrontation clause where Aldrich was systematically denied access to witnesses by the imposition of a one-sided I, written consent requirement", which denied Aldrich his right to a fair trial. Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505, 517 (1965)("To say that a defendant has a right to present his defence and then deprive him of the means of effectively exercising that right would reduce the guaranty to an idle gesture"). See and compare State v. MurtaRh, Alaska, No. S-11988/ 12007(2007)(ruling that the written consent requirrnent to be unconstitutional). Under these circumstances, Aldrich i s entitled to relief. I, 12/ G.L.c. 2588, 5 3(rn), states: For victims and witnesses, to be informed of the right to submit to or decline an interview by defense counsel or anyone actine. on the defendant's behalf. eXCeDt when resoonding ti lawful process " See C.S. v: Bailey, 824 F.2d. 218 (1st. cir. jGk?)?An uniustified denial of access to wit.nesses within 'governmental 'control implicates constitutionally protected rights). 47
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 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 and 54: 3. WUERE DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO P
Page 55: of trial (R.A. "49-50"), in violati
Page 59 and 60: "52-62"), and out of fear and intim
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?