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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 […]
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
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 […]
Police: Tremont Street Homicide Under Investigation
Police are currently investigating a fatal shooting in the South End. South End Patch News
Week in Review: Hernandez Investigation
The following were the top articles on South End Patch from June 24 to June 28, 2013: Poli South End Patch News
Categories: Arrests Tags: Hernandez, Investigation, Review, Week
March Top Ten: Homicide Investigation, Attempted Bank Robbery, Whole Foods
The numbers are in, and these are the most popular South End stories according to you and your neighbors in the month of March: 1. Man Found Dead on West Canton Street – A man was found dead on West Canton Street in the South End on March 23, according to the Boston Police Department. Homicide detectives are now investigating the man’s death. 2. Police: Attempted Robbery at Washington Street Bank Failed When Teller Couldn’t Read Note – After handing the teller a note that she couldn’t read, a bank robbery suspect told her she was “stupid,” and left. 3. South End Answers: When Will the Whole Foods Open? – Reader J. Nicole asked via Twitter, “When are we getting a Whole Foods and a Pinkberry? Life’s essential elements.” Find out the answer here. 4. Two of ‘Boston’s Finest’ Give Inside Scoop on the Show – Boston Police officers featured on the show dish about working with Donnie Wahlberg, and that one has never heard of New Kids on the Block. 5. South End Man’s Remains Found in Charles River – State Police detectives identified the remains of a man found in the Charles River on March 14 as a 32-year-old South End man. 6. TV Show Filming in South End Next Week – ABC’s new drama “Hatfields & McCoys,” shot on Waltham, Harrison and Washington Street in March. 7. Boston Man Charged with Kidnapping Near South End – A man allegedly kept a female victim in his residence against her will over the weekend. 8. South End’s Genuine Interactive Named One of Boston’s Fastest Growing Businesses – The South End’s Genuine Interactive has been recognized as one of the fastest growing private companies in Massachusetts by the by the Boston Business Journal. 9. Week in Review: Celebrities, Kidnapping, Whole Foods – March 18 to March 22, 2013 was a busy week in the South End. 10. Where to Eat During Restaurant Week in the South End – Boston Restaurant week was held from March 17 to 22, and March 24-29, 2013. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch
Drug Investigation Prompts Arrest on Harrison Avenue
The following information was supplied by the Boston Police Department. Charges listed do not indicate convictions. A drug investigation lead to an arrest on Harrison Avenue on Saturday evening. Boston resident Peter Monzi, of 784 Mass. Ave., was charged with multiple drug charges after police say they saw him buying heroin. Police conducted a drug investigation in the area of 881 Harrison Ave. on Saturday, March 30 at 6:15 p.m. Officers said they watched Monzi speak with two people on Harrison Ave, then walk down towards East Lenox Street and stop outside of 889 Harrison Ave. Officers said they then witnessed a hand-to-hand drug transaction. Police said Monzi returned to the area of 881 Harrison Ave. and sat on the ground with a syringe in one hand and a plastic cup with heroin in the other. Officers confronted Monzi and placed him under arrest. The suspect told officers that he had traded a $ 36 gift card for heroin with one of the unknowns in the group moments earlier. Police also found three round purple pills, which Monzi said were vitamins. The pills turned out to be Bupropion, a Class E substance. Officers arrested Monzi and charged him with possession of a Class A substance and with three outstanding warrants from New Bedford and Fall River District Court. Officers were unable to locate the man who sold Monzi the heroin. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch