Posts tagged "1209517"

Commonwealth v. Jones (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-095-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT Docket No. 17-49 COMMONWEALTH vs. DENNIS LEE JONES MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON COMMONWEALTH’S MOTIONS (1) FOR PRODUCTION OF A PIN ACCESS CODE, AND (2) TO REOPEN EVIDENCE OR FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant Dennis Lee Jones is charged with trafficking a person for sexual servitude in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 50(a), and deriving support from the earnings of a prostitute in violation of G.L. c. 272, § 7. On June 26, 2017, I held a hearing and took under advisement the Commonwealth’s Motion for an Order Requiring Production of a PIN (Personal Identification Number) Access Code (Docket #14) to unlock a cellular telephone under Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt (“Gelfgatt”), 468 Mass. 512 (2014). The next day, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Reopen Evidence in Motion Hearing to Compel Defendant to Produce PIN Code for Cellular Telephone Seized Pursuant to Search Warrant or/in the Alternative Request for Reconsideration Upon Denial of Commonwealth’s Motion to Compel (Docket #17)1 seeking to file an affidavit by Woburn Police Sgt. Det. Brian McManus.2 After further hearing on July 19, 2017, the motion to reopen is ALLOWED and the motion to compel is DENIED. 1 To the extent the Commonwealth sought “reconsideration,” it was premature because I had not yet decided the Gelfgatt motion, although the Commonwealth did not know how quickly I might have decided the issue. 2 The documents before me refer to Mr. McManus as Sergeant Detective and also as Detective Sergeant. For consistency, I refer to him herein as “Sgt. Det. McManus.” 2 I. The Motion to Reopen The trial court has considerable discretion to determine whether to permit additional evidence after a hearing and even after a motion has been decided. See, e.g., Mass. R. Crim. P. 13(a)(5) (where “substantial justice requires, the judge . . . may permit a pretrial motion which has been heard and denied to be renewed”); Commonwealth v. Pagan, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 369, 374-375 (2008). It is in the interest of substantial justice that the issue presented in the Gelfgatt motion be decided on the most complete and accurate record available. The motion raises an important question about whether the Commonwealth will be able to access potentially relevant information from a cellular telephone believed to belong to defendant. Even if I were to decide the question on the factual record as it existed on June 26, 2017, nothing would prevent the Commonwealth from seeking to renew its motion in the interest of “substantial justice.” Defendant has not demonstrated that he will be prejudiced if I were to consider the additional information. None of the material additional information was new to the defendant. Defendant has had an opportunity to […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 1, 2017 at 8:12 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,