Close

Mobile ImageText DelSignore Law at 781-686-5924 with your name and what kind of charge you are texting regarding.

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holds that smell of burnt marijuana is insufficient to justify an exit order

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed an important legal issues that arose once the Massachusetts legislature decriminalized simple possession of under one ounce of marijuana. Does the smell of burnt marijuana justify an order that a motorist exit a motor vehicle. In the case of Commonwealth v. Cruz, decided April…

Updated:

United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bullcoming v. New Mexico which could impact the admissibility of breathalyzer evidence in Massachusetts

Bullcoming v. New Mexico raises a significant issue under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause regarding scientific and blood test evidence in Massachusetts drunk driving cases with breathalyzer or blood test results. The State of New Mexico attempted to present evidence to prove the defendant’s blood alcohol content through a surrogate…

Updated:

United States Supreme Court diminishes right of confrontation in case of Michigan v. Bryant

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan v. Bryant, decided today, diminishes the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. The Court held that statements are nontestimonial and thus not covered by the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause when the primary purpose of the statement is to allow the police to respond…

Updated:

United States Supreme Court declines to hear case raising the issue of whether Constitution requires unanimous jury verdict

The United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Louisiana in the case of Barbour v. Louisiana which raises the issue of whether the Constitution requires a unanimous jury verdict to support a criminal conviction. Click on this link to read the filings from the case on the…

Updated:

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument in Commonwealth v. Zeininger regarding admissibility of breathalyzer test results at DUI trial

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on February 7, 2011 in the case of Commonwealth v. Zeininger, which was an appeal of a drunk driving conviction out of the Greenfield District Court. The defendants in the case filed an appeal with the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, which the…

Updated:

Comments on recent Appeals Court decision on the breathalyzer margin of error

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals, in the case of Commonwealth v. Rumery, decided February 4, 2011, issued a decision regarding the margin of error of the breathalyzer at Massachusetts DUI trials. The court ruled that a defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction that the breathalyzer has an inherent…

Updated:

Breathalyzer source code hearing in Massachusetts drunk driving cases denied by trial judge

A Massachusetts trial judge, Mark Sullivan, in the case of Commonwealth v. Anthony Daen, denied the defendant’s request for a Daubert-Lanigan hearing in a group of Massachusetts drunk driving cases that were consolidated for the Honorable Judge Mark Sullivan out of the Lawrence District Court. The case involved 60 defendants…

Updated:

Bristol County District Attorney proposes having defendants sign waiver to allow criminal trials to proceed when defendants fail to appear in court

Bristol County District Attorney Sam Sutter’s proposal to move trials forward even if the defendant fails to appear would be declared unconstitutional by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. In an effort to decrease the number of defendant’s who fail to appear in court, the Bristol County District Attorney has proposed…

Updated:

United States Supreme Court decision limits the scope of federal habeas corpus relief of State court criminal convictions

The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Harrington v. Richter, decided, January 19, 2011, held that a trial counsel was not ineffective under the federal habeas corpus statute, called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, when his trial counsel did not pursue a defense involving…

Contact Us