Commonwealth v. Weichell case brief
ANALYSIS:
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
446 Mass. 785, 847 N.E.2d 1080, 2006
Mass.
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant was convicted
of murder in the first degree, and the court affirmed the conviction.
The Superior Court Department (Massachusetts) denied defendant's new
trial motion. Over a decade later, defendant filed a second motion
for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and the
motion judge granted the motion. The Commonwealth sought review of
the motion judge's order.
FACTS: In defendant's murder trial, the Commonwealth had presented evidence that in the weeks prior to the victim's death, defendant and his friend had confrontations with the victim. In his second new trial motion, defendant asserted that his friend's confession letter and incriminating statements made to a second friend were newly discovered evidence. The motion judge granted the motion.
FACTS: In defendant's murder trial, the Commonwealth had presented evidence that in the weeks prior to the victim's death, defendant and his friend had confrontations with the victim. In his second new trial motion, defendant asserted that his friend's confession letter and incriminating statements made to a second friend were newly discovered evidence. The motion judge granted the motion.
ANALYSIS:
On appeal, the court held that the
evidence was not newly discovered because defendant did not suffer
from any mental impairment preventing him from pursuing exculpatory
evidence; because he deliberately failed to ascertain the letter's
contents long before he filed his second new trial motion, although
he had it within his means to do so; and because he had to make no
more effort than to ask the second friend, before filing his first
new trial motion, if the first friend, whom he knew to be a suspect,
had said anything about the murder. The court also held that the
letter and the incriminating statements were inadmissible hearsay
because they were neither adequately corroborated nor contemporaneous
with defendant's arrest or conviction and because they otherwise
lacked trustworthiness.
CONCLUSION: The court vacated the order granting defendant a new trial and directed that a new order denying the motion be entered.
CONCLUSION: The court vacated the order granting defendant a new trial and directed that a new order denying the motion be entered.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment