Posts tagged "Jury"

In the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-152-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   16-P-215                                        Appeals Court   IN THE MATTER OF A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION.     No. 16-P-215.   Middlesex.     October 5, 2017. – December 11, 2017.   Present:  Sullivan, Blake, & Singh, JJ.     Witness, Compelling giving of evidence, Self-incrimination.  Constitutional Law, Self-incrimination.  Cellular Telephone.  Grand Jury.  Privacy.  Public Records. Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel.  Contempt.     Motion filed in the Superior Court Department on January 22, 2016.   The proceeding was heard by Kimberly S. Budd, J., and entry of a judgment of contempt was ordered by her.     Joanne M. Daley, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the petitioner. Kevin J. Curtin, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     BLAKE, J.  The petitioner appeals from an order directing him to enter his personal identifying number (PIN) access code (hereinafter PIN code) into his Apple iPhone (a “smart” cellular telephone, hereinafter iPhone), and a subsequent judgment of contempt for refusing to comply.  We affirm. Background.  A Middlesex County grand jury requested that an assistant district attorney seek an order from a Superior Court judge as part of an ongoing investigation of an assault and battery on two children.  The Commonwealth thus moved for an order that the petitioner produce the PIN code and any other electronic key or password required for the iPhone.  A search warrant previously issued in the Lowell Division of the District Court Department had authorized a search of the contents of the iPhone. The motion, the proposed order, and two additional documents were filed in court under seal.  The motion and the proposed order were served on counsel for the petitioner; the additional documents were not.  One of the additional documents was a statement showing the petitioner’s ownership and control of the iPhone and the Commonwealth’s knowledge thereof.  The other document was an affidavit of the assistant district attorney, which summarized the evidence before the grand jury; appended to the affidavit was a transcript of the grand jury proceedings. The petitioner filed a reply.  After a hearing, in which petitioner’s counsel participated, the Commonwealth’s motion was allowed, and an order entered detailing the protocol by which the petitioner would enter the PIN code so that the search warrant could be executed.  The order also prohibited the Commonwealth from introducing evidence of the petitioner’s act of production in any prosecution of him. When the […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 11, 2017 at 6:32 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

In the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-086-17)

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-12249   IN THE MATTER OF A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION.     May 25, 2017.     Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Moot Question.     The petitioner, R.C., appealed from a judgment of the county court denying his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  R.C. has been indicted for possessing and distributing child pornography.  In his petition, he sought relief from an order of a Superior Court judge authorizing computers and digital storage devices (digital material) seized from his home to be searched for child pornography.  R.C., who is an attorney, argued that the digital material may contain privileged data provided to him by his clients and that the Superior Court judge’s order did not adequately protect any such privileged data because it does not conform to the protocol set forth in Preventive Med. Assocs. v. Commonwealth, 465 Mass. 810 (2013).  After the single justice denied relief, R.C. moved to stay the Superior Court order pending this appeal.  We denied that motion, thereby allowing the search to proceed.  The Commonwealth has moved to dismiss this appeal as moot.  It represents that the search has taken place pursuant to the protocol set forth in the Superior Court order, that files allegedly containing child pornography were transmitted to R.C.’s counsel, and that R.C. does not claim that any of those files are protected by the attorney-client privilege.  R.C. has not disputed these representations or filed any response to the motion within the time set forth in Mass. R. A. P. 15 (a), 365 Mass. 859 (1974).  R.C.’s challenge to the Superior Court order has become moot, as that order has been fully carried out.  See Lenardis v. Commonwealth, 452 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2008).  No effective relief can be provided.  Moreover, we see no reason to believe that the issue is capable of repetition, yet evading review, and R.C. has offered none.   Appeal dismissed.   The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Andrew W. Piltser Cowan for the petitioner. Varsha Kukafka & Anne S. Yas, Assistant District Attorneys, for the Commonwealth. Full-text Opinions

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 26, 2017 at 12:19 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

In the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-004-15)

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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11697 IN THE MATTER OF A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION. Suffolk. September 4, 2014. – January 12, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Grand Jury. Subpoena. Cellular Telephone. Constitutional Law, Grand jury, Subpoena, Self-incrimination. Practice, Criminal, Grand jury proceedings, Subpoena duces tecum, Warrant. Evidence, Grand jury proceedings. Attorney at Law, Attorney-client relationship. Search and Seizure, Warrant, Probable cause. Probable Cause. Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on April 7, 2014. The case was reserved and reported by Botsford, J. Aaron M. Katz (Patrick Welsh with him) for the petitioner.   James L. Sultan (Charles W. Rankin with him) for the amicus curiae. Teresa K. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney (Patrick M. Haggan, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. LENK, J.  This appeal arises from a petition brought under G. L. c. 211, § 3, challenging a Superior Court judge’s order approving the issuance of a grand jury subpoena duces tecum that compels a law firm to produce a cellular telephone.  The single justice reserved and reported the matter to this court, and our analysis is confined to the limited record before us. The Commonwealth contends that the telephone belonged to John Doe,[1] the target of a grand jury investigation; that it was transferred from Doe to the law firm to obtain legal advice; and that it contains in the information stored on its memory, particularly in its record of text messages, evidence of a crime under investigation by the grand jury.  The Superior Court judge determined that, while a subpoena served on Doe would violate his right against self-incrimination, and a subpoena served on the law firm would violate the attorney-client privilege, a subpoena compelling the law firm to produce the telephone could be served upon an ex parte showing by the Commonwealth of probable cause sufficient for the issuance of a search warrant.  We conclude that, on the record before us, the attorney-client privilege protects Doe against compelled production of the telephone by the law firm, and that the protection afforded by the attorney-client privilege may not be set aside based on a showing of probable cause.  We therefore reverse the Superior Court judge’s order. 1.  Background.  The law firm began representing Doe in April, 2013.  According to the Commonwealth, in June, 2013, Doe transferred the telephone to the law firm in connection with its provision of legal services to him.[2]  In March, 2014, the Commonwealth moved […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 12, 2015 at 7:57 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Grand Jury Hammers Marathon Bombing Suspect with 30 Charges

Article written by Roberto Scalese A federal jury returned 30 counts against suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The 70-page indictment includes charges for weapons of mass destruction, murder and more. "Seventeen South End Patch News

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 27, 2013 at 7:32 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , ,