463 Mass. 353 - Appellee Commonwealth Brief - Mass Cases
463 Mass. 353 - Appellee Commonwealth Brief - Mass Cases 463 Mass. 353 - Appellee Commonwealth Brief - Mass Cases
Cases Murray v. United States, 487 u.s. 533 (1988) Spinelli v. United States, 393 u.s. 410 (1969) United States v. De la Paz, 43 F.Supp.2d 370 S.D.N.Y (1999) . United States v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971 (11u Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985) Rules and Statutes G. L. c. 94C, § 32A (a) G. L. c. 94C, § 32J G. L. c. 111, § 113 G. L. c. 272, § 99 Massachusetts Declaration Article 12 Massachusetts Evidence, § 8.2.3 (6th ed. 1994) United State Constitution, The Fifth Amendment United State Constitution, The Sixth Amendment of Rights, vii 36 17 49 42 2 2 15, 16, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50 4 22 46 23 22, 26, 33, 34, 35
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT MIDDLESEX COUNTY 2011 SITTING NO. 10926 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, v. RAYMOND MENDES AND RONALD MENDES, APPELLEE, APPELLANTS. ON APPEAL FROM AN ORDER AND JUDGMENTS OF THE SOMERVILLE DISTRICT COURT BRIEF FOR THE COMMONWEALTH ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Did the motion judge improperly deny Ronald Mendes' motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, where the affidavit sufficiently established the veracity and the basis of knowledge of two confidential informants and a nexus between the illegal drugs and the defendants' residence? 2. Was the admission in evidence against Ronald Mendes of the certificates of analysis for the drugs harmless error, where the premise of Ronald Mendes' entire defense was to concede that he possessed the
- Page 1 and 2: COMMONWEALTH OF .MASSACHUSETTS SUPR
- Page 3 and 4: B. Applying the Degraca/Mahdi Facto
- Page 5 and 6: Cases Commonwealth v. Degraca, 447
- Page 7: Cases Commonwealth v. Todisco, 363
- Page 11 and 12: The defendants moved to suppress ev
- Page 13: in a primarily residential neighbor
- Page 17: informants are used in drug investi
- Page 20 and 21: (an eighth of an·ounce of cocaine)
- Page 23: etween the defendants' drug dealing
- Page 26 and 27: 431 (1992), or the informant has pr
- Page 28 and 29: Blake, 413 Mass. 823, 828 (1992). N
- Page 31 and 32: Fifth Amendment violation can be ha
- Page 34 and 35: This test has been applied repeated
- Page 36 and 37: factors call for the reviewing Cour
- Page 38 and 39: at 554, If the overall strength of
- Page 40: counsel for Ronald Mendes actually
- Page 43 and 44: This circumstance fits comfortably
- Page 45 and 46: seized. But the testimony of the de
- Page 48: client is going to concede that he
- Page 51 and 52: Westbrooks, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 417,
- Page 53 and 54: of the statements made by the calle
- Page 55 and 56: phones were used as instrumentaliti
- Page 57 and 58: In factually analogous cases, the A
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS<br />
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT<br />
MIDDLESEX COUNTY 2011 SITTING<br />
NO. 10926<br />
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,<br />
v.<br />
RAYMOND MENDES AND RONALD MENDES,<br />
APPELLEE,<br />
APPELLANTS.<br />
ON APPEAL FROM AN ORDER AND JUDGMENTS OF<br />
THE SOMERVILLE DISTRICT COURT<br />
BRIEF FOR THE COMMONWEALTH<br />
ISSUES PRESENTED<br />
1. Did the motion judge improperly deny Ronald<br />
Mendes' motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to<br />
a search warrant, where the affidavit sufficiently<br />
established the veracity and the basis of knowledge of<br />
two confidential informants and a nexus between the<br />
illegal drugs and the defendants' residence?<br />
2. Was the admission in evidence against Ronald<br />
Mendes of the certificates of analysis for the drugs<br />
harmless error, where the premise of Ronald Mendes'<br />
entire defense was to concede that he possessed the
Change language