Posts tagged "Chamberlin"

Commonwealth v. Chamberlin (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-023-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-11877   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  PETER CHAMBERLIN.       Bristol.     October 6, 2015. – February 19, 2016.   Present (Sitting at New Bedford):  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Cellular Telephone.  Subpoena.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Subpoena, Warrant.  Search and Seizure, Warrant.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 21, 2007.   Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by D. Lloyd Macdonald, J., and the cases were tried before Robert J. Kane, J.   After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.     Merritt Schnipper for the defendant. Tara L. Blackman, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Chauncey B. Wood, Matthew R. Segal, Jessie J. Rossman, Kevin S. Prussia, & Caitlin W. Monahan for Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers & another, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Marguerite T. Grant, Assistant District Attorney, for District Attorney for the Norfolk District, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.   LENK, J.  In the aftermath of an attempted robbery in 2007, where the victim was bound, threatened, and shot, the police conducted an investigation seeking three attackers who had fled the scene.  As part of that investigation, a detective obtained from a cellular telephone service provider certain subscriber records for the defendant’s telephone number.  The information thus obtained formed part of a later affidavit offered in support of a search warrant that, in turn, ultimately yielded several items of an incriminatory nature subsequently admitted at trial.  Before trial, the defendant without success moved to suppress the telephone records and the physical evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant.  He was convicted of armed robbery while masked, G. L. c. 265, § 17; kidnapping for purposes of extortion, G. L. c. 265, § 26; and armed assault with intent to murder, G. L. c. 265, § 18.  Following affirmance of his convictions by the Appeals Court, see Commonwealth v. Chamberlin, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 705, 713 (2014), we allowed the defendant’s application for further appellate review, limited to issues related to his cellular telephone records. The basis for the defendant’s challenge is the government’s failure to comply with G. L. c. 271, § 17B, the telephone records demand statute, as then in effect.  That statute in essence authorized the Attorney General or a district attorney on certain conditions to demand of common carriers (like […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 19, 2016 at 6:43 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Chamberlin (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-157-14)

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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   12-P-1292                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  PETER CHAMBERLIN. No. 12-P-1292. Bristol.     September 9, 2014. – December 5, 2014.   Present:  Kantrowitz, Grainger, & Hanlon, JJ.   Cellular Telephone.  Subpoena.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Subpoena, Warrant.  Grand Jury.  Search and Seizure, Warrant, Plain view.  Due Process of Law.  Evidence, Voice identification.  Identification.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 21, 2007.   Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by D. Lloyd Macdonald, J., and the cases were tried before Robert J. Kane, J.     Merritt Schnipper for the defendant. Tara L. Blackman, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     GRAINGER, J.  A jury of the Superior Court found the defendant guilty of armed robbery while masked, G. L. 265, § 17, kidnapping for purposes of extortion, G. L. c. 265, § 26, and armed assault with intent to murder, G. L. c. 265, § 18(b).  The convictions were based on the armed invasion of a real estate agency following telephone conversations between the defendant and the agency’s owner during which the defendant made an evening appointment for the ostensible purpose of discussing one or more properties of interest to him.  The defendant appeals, asserting numerous procedural and evidentiary errors that we consider in turn, referring to the undisputed factual background as necessary to inform our discussion. 1.  Production of telephone records.  The victim told the police that although the defendant was masked, his voice was recognizable as belonging to an individual who identified himself as “Marco” during several telephone calls that culminated in an evening appointment at the victim’s office for the time of the robbery.  The victim reported that the defendant spoke repeatedly during the robbery, making threats to the victim and referring to the victim’s wife.  In the course of investigating the robbery, Fall River police Detective Lawrence Ferreira examined the victim’s phone, retrieving a voicemail message from “Marco.”  After obtaining call records from the victim’s cellular telephone carrier, Detective Ferreira linked the defendant to the only number on the call list that the victim did not recognize.  Ferreira then contacted the carrier, T-Mobile, and requested call records associated with that number.  Ferreira informed the T-Mobile law enforcement relations officer, Ronald Witt, that the defendant’s phone was being used to contact the victim’s family and that the “suspect has threatened the victim’s family with bodily harm.”[1] […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 5, 2014 at 11:10 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,