Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.

QUESTION

Write 5 pages thesis on the topic massachusetts supreme judicial court. On this day, there was a sitting of a full SJC bench at John Adams Courthouse, courtroom one. The bench sat in full, to hear the

Write 5 pages thesis on the topic massachusetts supreme judicial court. On this day, there was a sitting of a full SJC bench at John Adams Courthouse, courtroom one. The bench sat in full, to hear the appeals, composed of an uneven number of judges, seven. There were two criminal cases that were listed, SJC-11164 Commonwealth vs Leslie Bertini, and SJC-11163 Commonwealth vs Eugene Bertini. The defendants had been indicted for an armed robbery, armed assault with intent to rob, assault, and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault with a dangerous weapon and larceny of over $250. The trial court had granted the Commonwealth orders to compel the accused to produce a buccal swab, allowing the commonwealth to employ reasonable force to ensure compliance with the said order. Subsequently, the defendants sought review of this order from a single judge. Moreover, Eugene Bertini filed a petition arguing that the Commonwealth had not discharged the burden to show that the evidence being sought was relevant to the matter in question and that use of force to extract his DNA sample while he had not been convicted, violated his search and seizure rights under the fourth amendment and article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Leslie Bertini also filed an application for leave to appeal to the mass. R.Crim.p.15 (a)(2). She also argued that the Commonwealth had failed to show that the evidence sought would go towards proving her guilt, and added that allowing the Commonwealth to obtain the evidence by force, violates her rights to due process and not to self-incriminate. incriminate. The petitions were denied by the single justice, prompting the appeal before the full bench. The appeal also raised matter of constitutional law. The appellants argued that the order was violating their constitutional rights to privacy and to be free from unlawful search and seizure.

Show more
LEARN MORE EFFECTIVELY AND GET BETTER GRADES!
Ask a Question