462 Mass. 1 Appellant Ray Brief - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

-i- TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................. ii ISSUE PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS .................. 1 ARGUMENT THE INDICTMENTS MUST BE DISMISSED ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS BECAUSE THE JUDGE DECLARED THE JURY TO BE DEADLOCKED AND TERMINATED THE TRIAL OVER THE DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION WHEN THERE WAS NO "MANIFEST NECESSITY" TO DO SO .......... -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. There was no "manifest necessity" for the mistrial because the judge failed to ascertain if there was a reasonable probability of a unanimous verdict prior to declaring a mistrial ................... 5 C. The judge's decision to declare a mistrial is not entitled to deference.on appeal because the judge did not give careful consideration to the available alternatives and the defendant's interest in retaining the chosen .i.Y.£y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 CONCLUSION ....................................... 14 ADDENDUM ......................................... 16 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................ 18 RECORD APPENDIX .................................. 19
-ii- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 3 9 2 Mas s . 5 2 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 , 1 0 Arizona v. Washington, 434 u.s. 497 (1978) ............................ 8, 14 Barton v. Commonwealth, 3 8 5 Mass . 517 ( 19 8 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 14 Benton v. Maryland, 395 u.s. 784 (1969) ............................ 5 Collins v. Commonwealth, 412 Mass . 3 4 9 ( 19 9 2) ........................... 14 Commonwealth v. Andrews, 4 0 3 Mas s . 4 4 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Commonwealth v. Haley, 4 13 Mas s . 7 7 0 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Commonwealth v. Horrigan, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 337 (1996) ................... 14 Commonwealth v. Murray, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 984 (1986) ................... 13 Commonwealth v. Phetsaya, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 293 (1996) ................... 14 Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 3 6 4 Mas s . 8 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 1 , 4 Commonwealth v. Steward, 3 9 6 Mass . 7 6 ( 19 8 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 9, 10 14 Commonwealth v. Tuey, 62 Mass. 1 (1851) .............................. 1, 4
Page 1: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPRE
Page 5: -iv- Statutes G.L. c.211, §3. . .
Page 9 and 10: Commonwealth (R. 33-34). -4- ARGUME
Page 11 and 12: -6- See Commonwealth v. Haley, 413
Page 13: -8- "high degree" of necessity requ
Page 19 and 20: -14- single prosecutionn required t

462 Mass. 1 Appellant Ray Brief - Mass Cases

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

Delete template?

Save as template?