Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

When Can a Defendant Waive Their Right to a Jury Trial in Massachusetts

April 10, 2022 | by Michael DelSignore

When Can a Defendant Waive Their Right to a Jury Trial?

Most of us know that there is a fundamental right to a jury trial. However, there is also a right to waive a jury trial. The case of Commonwealth v. Gebo is pending before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and involves a defendant who wanted to waive her right to a jury on the day of trial.

In April of 2017, Homer Gebo was watching the news and drinking coffee in his home. His wife, the defendant, went into the kitchen. A fight ensued between them, and the defendant picked up a plastic chair and hit Mr. Gebo’s arm. Mr. Gebo grabbed the chair and threw it. The defendant then hit Mr. Gebo in the head with a ladle. He passed out for 10-12 seconds and then awoke. Confused, Mr. Gebo asked what had happened and why the defendant hit him. She told him that he had a heart attack.

Is Solitary Confinement Torture? United States Supreme Court May Decide.

April 9, 2022 | by Michael DelSignore

Is Solitary Confinement Torture? United States Supreme Court May Decide.

The United Nations considers solitary confinement exceeding 15 days to be torture, however solitary confinement is a popular method of inmate discipline in American prisons. Solitary confinement is also used for an inmate’s own safety if the inmate’s case was high profile or if the inmate has a higher chance of being injured by the other inmates. Dennis Wayne Hope has been in solitary confinement for 27 years. Hope v. Harris may be a turning point for prison reform if it reaches the United States Supreme Court.

What happened in the Hope case?

United States Supreme Court Reinstates Death Penalty for Boston Marathon Bomber

March 13, 2022 | by Michael DelSignore

United States Supreme Court Reinstates Death Penalty for Boston Marathon Bomber

The Boston Marathon bombings were a tragic act of domestic terrorism. Brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev planted two homemade pressure cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding hundreds more. The three individuals who died, were two young women and an eight year old boy. They all bled to death after being hit with materials from the bomb. Many of those who were injured lost limbs. In the aftermath of the attacks, the brothers fled and murdered a MIT campus police officer, and got into an altercation with police which resulted in Dzhokhar accidently killing Tamerlan. Dzhokhar was indicted for 30 crimes, including 17 capital offenses. After a lengthy and publicized trial, Dzhokhar was sentenced to death. However the Court of Appeals vacated this decision after finding that the District Court abused its discretion during jury selection by declining to ask about the kind and degree of each prospective juror’s media exposure and that the District Court abused its discretion during sentencing when it excluded evidence concerning Tamerlan’s possible involvement other murders. The Supreme Court took this case in United States v. Tsarnaev.

What happened in the Tsarnaev case?

What Makes a Defendant Intellectually Disabled? United States Supreme Court May Decide.

March 10, 2022 | by Michael DelSignore

What Makes a Defendant Intellectually Disabled? United States Supreme Court May Decide.

The Eighth Amendment of the constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. A punishment is considered cruel and unusual for many reasons, one of which is if the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime committed. In general, sentencing an intellectually disabled person to death is considered cruel and unusual punishment. The standard for providing an intellectual disability may soon change if the United States Supreme Court grants cert to the case of Commonwealth v. Knight.

What happened in the Knight case?

Does Business Insurance Cover Interruptions Caused by COVID-19? Massachusetts SJC May Decide.

February 14, 2022 | by Michael DelSignore

Does Business Insurance Cover Interruptions Caused by COVID-19? SJC May Decide.

Verveine Corporation operate three restaurants, The Coppa, Toro, and Little Donkey, located in Boston and Cambridge and share common owners. For many years these businesses were covered by insurance. Like many restaurants, the plaintiff’s businesses were successful until March of 2020 when they suffered losses as a result of the pandemic and government shutdown that rendered their insured properties unusable and inaccessible. Faced with this issue, the plaintiffs submitted insurance claims for loss of business income. However, their request was quickly rejected by a form letter. In June of 2020, the plaintiffs filed suit against Strathmore, alleging breach of contract for its denial of coverage and seeking declaratory judgment for enforcement of the insurance policies in the case of Verveine Corp. v. Strathmore.

The policy provided Business Income and Extra Expense Coverage, which covered, loss of business income due to necessary suspension of business operations during the period of restoration. The suspension must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property. One of the restaurants, the Little Donkey, even contained an “Exclusion of Loss Due to Virus or Bacteria” which states that the policy will not cover “loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.”

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to review the right to privacy on social media

February 13, 2022 | by Michael DelSignore

Do You Have a Right to Privacy on Social Media?

Many of us have privacy settings on social media, and restrict access to friends and family. However, is this enough for a court to find a reasonable expectation of privacy? The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court examined this question in Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo.

After accepting a friend request from an officer, the defendant posted a video to his social media that featured a person holding a gun. The undercover officer then recorded the post, which was later used in criminal proceedings against the defendant.

What is an “unduly suggestive” procedure in a criminal lineup in Massachusetts

February 3, 2022 | by Michael DelSignore

What is an “unduly suggestive” procedure in a criminal lineup?

According to the Constitution, it is a violation of Due Process if it is “unduly suggestive.” Examples of “unduly suggestive” can include things like being the only person of a certain race in a lineup, or being the only person who matches the suspect’s description. The Massachusetts Appellate Court recently decided a case that examined this issue in Commonwealth v. Travis.

What happened in the Travis case?

Trial by Zoom in Massachusetts Does Not Violate Confrontation Right, SJC Decides

February 2, 2022 | by Michael DelSignore

Remote Trial did not Violate Defendant’s Constitutional Rights

Ever since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been some discussion as to whether remote trials are in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights. In the recently decided case of Commonwealth v. Curran, the highest court in Massachusetts decided that it does not.

What happened in the Curran case?

Can the Police Test Your Blood Without Your Consent in Massachusetts, SJC will decide in Moreau case

February 1, 2022 | by Michael DelSignore

Can the Police Test Your Blood Without Your Consent? The Massachusetts Appellate Court May Decide.

The Massachusetts statutes state that when a chemical “test or analysis” of a defendant’s blood-alcohol content is made by or at the direction of police, it is admissible in court only if the defendant consents. In the case of Commonwealth v. Eric Moreau, the police obtained a warrant to seize blood drawn from the defendant by hospital personnel and then tested it in the State Police Crime Lab without the defendant’s consent. This case is pending before the Massachusetts Appellate Court and asks whether the result of the test is admissible in the prosecution of the defendant.

What happened in the Moreau case?

United States Supreme Court Blocks Vaccine Test Rule enacted by the Biden Administration

January 31, 2022 | by Michael DelSignore

United States Supreme Court Blocks Vaccine or Test Rule

Over the past few weeks, the Omicron variant of COVID-19 variant has exploded. As a response to the rising cases, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration mandated that employers with at least 100 employees require covered workers to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. This week, the Supreme Court blocked this rule in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

What happened in this case?