Posts tagged "1010515"

Commonwealth v. Wallace (and a companion case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-105-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   SJC-11705 SJC-11707   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  NICKOYAN WALLACE (and a companion case[1]). Suffolk.     February 4, 2015. – June 30, 2015.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Homicide.  Constitutional Law, Speedy trial, Delay in commencement of prosecution.  Due Process of Law, Delay in commencement of prosecution.  Practice, Criminal, Speedy trial, Delay in commencement of prosecution, Capital case.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on May 22, 2002.   Motions to dismiss, filed on June 18 and 28, 2010, were heard by Charles J. Hely, J.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal in the companion case was allowed by Gants, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeals were consolidated and reported by him to the Appeals Court.  After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.     Norman S. Zalkind (Ruth O’Meara-Costello with him) for Timi Wallace. Matthew A. Kamholtz for Nickoyan Wallace. Sarah Montgomery Lewis, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. J. Anthony Downs, Samuel Sherry, Catherine Curley, Matthew R. Segal, Jessie Rossman, & Chauncey B. Wood for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.     SPINA, J.  In this consolidated interlocutory appeal, we consider whether the Commonwealth’s delay in obtaining custody of the defendants Nickoyan Wallace (Nickoyan) and Timi Wallace (Timi),[2] brothers, from Federal prison authorities impermissibly affected their right to a speedy trial.  In considering this question in motions to dismiss due to delays totaling more than nine years,[3] a judge of the Superior Court found that Timi’s right to a speedy trial had not been violated but that of Nickoyan had.  A single justice of this court allowed the interlocutory appeals of Timi and the Commonwealth, consolidated the cases, and reported them to the Appeals Court.  The Appeals Court held that the Commonwealth had not violated the speedy trial right of either brother, affirming the denial of Timi’s motion and reversing the allowance of Nickoyan’s.  Commonwealth v. Wallace, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 123 (2014).  This court granted the brothers’ applications for further appellate review.  We affirm the decision of the trial court to deny Timi’s motion and to allow Nickoyan’s motion.[4] 1.  Background.  The essential facts are not in dispute, and […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 30, 2015 at 5:33 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,