Posts tagged "Tahlil"

Commonwealth v. Tahlil (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-062-18)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12338   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  ADNAN TAHLIL.     April 18, 2018.     Practice, Criminal, Discovery, Interlocutory appeal.  Evidence, Videotape.  Constitutional Law, Self-incrimination.  Attorney at Law, Use of confidence or secret.     The Commonwealth appeals from a judgment of a single justice of the county court denying its petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, from an interlocutory ruling of the Boston Municipal Court Department.  We reverse.   The defendant, Adnan Tahlil, has been charged in the Boston Municipal Court Department with larceny from a person, in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 30; assault and battery, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13A; assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15A (b); and receiving stolen property, in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 60.  The charges stem from an incident that occurred on May 18, 2013, during which several individuals assaulted and robbed the victim.  Shortly thereafter, someone used the victim’s Citizens’ Bank card at a Tedeschi market.  The police obtained a digital video disc (DVD) containing surveillance video from the market.  The victim viewed the DVD at the police station and identified the defendant and two other individuals as three of the four assailants.   During the course of discovery, the Commonwealth provided the defendant with a copy of the DVD.  It appears that defense counsel was unable to open and view the DVD and ultimately viewed the video footage at the district attorney’s office.  As the trial date approached, the Commonwealth was unable to locate its own copy of the DVD.  On the day before the scheduled trial, the Commonwealth moved for an order requiring the defendant to return to the Commonwealth a copy of the DVD for the Commonwealth’s use at trial.[1]  The trial judge denied the motion.  The Commonwealth then filed its G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, which a single justice denied without a hearing.   In its appeal to this court, the Commonwealth argues that the trial judge’s decision to deny its motion was clearly erroneous.  We agree.  No reasonable basis exists for the defendant’s refusal to return to the Commonwealth a copy of the very thing that the Commonwealth gave to him.  The defendant does not deny that he has the item.  His main argument is that requiring him to provide the Commonwealth with a copy of the DVD would violate […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 19, 2018 at 6:34 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,