Commonwealth v. McGhee (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-023-15)
Convictions vacated where trial judge failed to inquire into credible information that juror slept through victim testimony despite prompt judicial intervention requirement.
SJC Opinions
Commonwealth v. Cowels; Commonwealth v. Mims (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-021-15)
Murder conviction vacated where DNA testing excluded defendants and victim as source of bloody towels that corroborated key witness with severe credibility issues.
Commonwealth v. Brown (and a companion case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-020-15)
Double jeopardy does not bar retrial where the jury's initial verdicts were too ambiguous to establish a clear acquittal on premeditation theory.
Guardianship of V.V. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-019-15)
Parent has constitutional right to appointed counsel in guardianship proceeding where another party seeks to displace parental rights and assume primary caretaker responsibilities.
In the Matter of: Dwyer-Jones, Suzanne T. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-018-15)
Attorney suspended in Maine for mental health and substance abuse conditions may be reciprocally transferred to disability inactive status in Massachusetts without a separate hearing.
Commonwealth v. Santiago (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-017-15)
Court rejects target standing doctrine allowing defendant to challenge search of third party. Reasonable suspicion supported investigatory stop; violation not egregious enough.
City of Somerville, et al. v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-016-15)
Municipality's authority to set health insurance contribution rates for retirees under General Laws chapter 32B is not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining with current employees.
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 34186 v. Sex Offender Registry Board (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-015-15)
Military court martial conviction under Article 134 incorporating federal child pornography statutes constitutes a "like violation" of Massachusetts sex offender registration law.
Doktor v. Doktor (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-014-15)
Alimony reform statute's retirement provision does not apply retroactively to pre-existing alimony judgments. Payor must show material change in circumstances.
Rodman v. Rodman (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-013-15)
Retirement provision of 2011 alimony reform act does not apply retroactively to alimony orders in judgments entered before act became effective.