SJC

The Supreme Judicial Court today upheld Martin Guy's first-degree conviction for a savage 1998 murder in Walpole's Bird Park.

Guy was initially identified as a suspect in the murder of an elderly woman out for a walk with her husband by a match in a federal DNA database with DNA taken from saliva on her bra and chest. He sought a new trial in part because of widely publicized, ongoing problems in the Massachusetts State Police crime lab in Sudbury - his appeal cites everything from a 2000 New Yorker article on the problems to a 2006 Department of Justice audit that showed problems with the way the lab handled DNA samples.

Ironically, those very problems led the court to reject his argument: Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court has once again upheld the constitutionality of State Police roadblocks aimed at catching drunk drivers - and arresting them for any contraband they might have with them.

The court decided two sobriety-checkpoint cases today. In one, the court ruled that even though roadblocks involve "warrantless seizures" of both vehicles and their drivers, they are legal as long as they are "not arbitrary," are conducted quickly and are done according to a specific set of rules. In the second, the court ruled that sobriety checkpoints are not random sweeps for contraband - which is unconstitutional - and that police officers do not have to overlook any possible illegal items or activity when they initially check for drunkenness.

In the second case, the court ruled:

Nothing in our cases suggests that an officer participating in an initial lawful encounter with a driver must, or even should, turn a blind eye to contraband or evidence in plain view that provides reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is being, committed.

Complete rulings: Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that neither judge nor jury did anything wrong in awarding the verdict to a Cape man who died because of a 2003 accident involving a parking-lot gate that crashed into the bus the man was on. Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court today overturned a Fall River man's conviction on an indecent assault and battery charge because his lawyer failed to produce the phone records that might have helped prove the sex was consensual. Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that tough Massachusetts consumer-protection laws apply to companies that operate here but which are based in other states that don't care as much about consumers. Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that Springfield police officers had the right to frisk a man in part because he refused to stop fidgeting under his clothes in a high-crime area as they were busy arresting somebody else.

Anthony Johnson was among a group of men hanging out at an apartment complex when passing officers noticed that one of the men was somebody who'd been warned not to trespass there. When they went to arrrest him, Johnson began fidgeting around in his pants pockets and, when officers told him to cut it out, he did so only briefly, then resumed fidgeting. At that point, an officer frisked him and found a vial containing what police later said was crack cocaine.

A lower-court judge threw out that evidence, arguing that, in the absence of any threatening actions, there were any number of reasons a man might be feeling around in his pants and that that was not enough reason for the police to frisk him.

The Supreme Judicial Court, however, rejected that argument. Although the court agreed that many law-abiding citizens live in high-crime areas, that they have a right not to be arbitrarily searched by police and that a group of young men standing around in broad daylight are not, per se, threatening, there was still enough reason for this particular man to be searched:

Here, however, the undisputed testimony of the two police officers was that the particular area of Springfield where the patfrisk occurred was, at the time of the frisk, "well known as a high gang area" with gun violence, citizen calls for shots fired, and heavy drug dealing. ... The judge found the defendant's hand movements to present an "objective ambiguity." The officer, on the scene, was not required to accept the risk of that ambiguity. The officer's command to the defendant to take his hands out of his pockets presumably was intended to avoid the need for any frisk; when the defendant disregarded the directive, from the officer's perspective, the need arose. "Strange, furtive, or suspicious behavior or movements can infuse otherwise innocent activity with an incriminating aspect." Commonwealth v. Pagan, 63 Mass.App.Ct. 780, 782-783 (2005). ...

Complete ruling: Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that a man charged with beating up a prison guard has to get a new trial because he was wrongly denied a new lawyer after the judge in his case ruled that if he's going to send a threatening, blood-smeared letter to his old lawyer, he'd have to represent himself.

The court ruled that while judges can strip defendants of counsel, they should do so only as an absolute last resort after an extensive hearing and that the judge in this case failed to provide due process or explore whether the inmate had made his threats due to serious, untreated mental illness - and only after his initial request for a new lawyer was denied - as he subsequently claimed:

In light of the fundamental constitutional rights at stake, before a judge finds that a defendant has forfeited his right to counsel and imposes the extreme sanction of denying an indigent defendant the assistance of counsel at trial or otherwise, she must first conduct a hearing at which the defendant has a full and fair opportunity to offer evidence as to the totality of the circumstances that may bear on the question of whether the sanction of forfeiture is both warranted and appropriate. Because the hearing conducted in this case fell short of that standard, we are constrained to reverse the judgments on the habitual criminal charges, reverse the judgments on the assault charges, and remand the case to the Superior Court for a new trial on the charges of assault and battery on a correction officer and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.

Complete ruling: Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court today ruled Proctor and Gamble won't have to pay the state several million dollars in taxes to settle a dispute, stretching back to 1998, over the status of the Gillette plant in South Boston.

At issue were tax credits Massachusetts allows companies to take for certain types of plant investments.

In 1998, the Gillette Co., based in Delaware, formally acquired all of the outstanding shares of subsidiary Gillette USA, which owned the South Boston plant. The following year, it filed for several million dollars in tax credits on the plant, but the state Department of Revenue denied the claim, and demanded $4.8 million in payments and interest, because the change in plant ownership meant the subsidiary had "disposed" of the plant, making it ineligible for the credits. Proctor and Gamble acquired Gillette in 2005.

As the court noted, however, "The day-to-day operations of the shaving products factory were unaffected by the merger, and the plant continued to operate."

Gillette appealed to the state Appellate Tax Board, which sided with the company. The court agreed with the board's decision:

The Legislature did not intend that a tax-free liquidation and merger of a wholly-owned subsidiary into a parent corporation constitute a "disposition" of the subsidiary's assets for the purposes of § 31A. We defer to the board's interpretation of § 31A's language in this case not only because the board adopted it, but, more importantly, because it is correct.

Complete decision: Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court today rejected a claim by a Whitman police officer injured in a crash while responding to a fatal accident caused by a Brockton Hospital patient whom the hospital released even though he was still under the effects of anesthesia.

The patient died when hit by a car while walking home under the influence of anesthesia he'd been given for a colonoscopy. While driving to that scene, Whitman officer Dean Leavitt's cruiser was hit by another car, resulting in serious - and permanent - injuries.

Although the hospital's own rules forbid patients under the influence of powerful sedatives from being released without an escort, the court said the chain of events did not therefore mean the hospital was to blame for Leavitt's injuries, since the hospital itself did not directly cause them:

... Leavitt's injury was not "caused" by the hospital because it falls outside the scope of foreseeable risk arising from any negligent conduct that would make the hospital's alleged misconduct tortious. ...

Complete ruling:

The Supreme Judicial Court today ruled the MBTA was right to make amends for discriminating against a worker by giving him higher seniority than he would have been entitled to under a contract with the Boston Carmen's Union.

The case involves a man the T refused to hire for a rail repair job after he failed the hearing part of a physical exam - because the T wouldn't let him wear his hearing aids. He complained to the Mass. Commission Against Discrimination; the T then decided to settle the case before the commission ruled by giving him the job at a more senior level than called for in the union contract.

The union then sued the T, arguing this violated the collective-bargaining agreement and seeking damages for the workers it said were effectively penalized by not being able to move into the position the worker got.

The court sided with the MBTA, saying "public policy" - in this case, doing something about the MBTA's problems with discrimination - override collective bargaining in this case, and that granting seniority is "the most meaningful remedy for discrimination in hiring."

The complete ruling (which also involves a separate case involving "spare" bus and train inspectors): Read more

It winds up before the Supreme Judicial Court.

The SJC today upheld the conviction of a Worcester man for throwing a brick through his own car window and then falsely telling police his neighbor - with whom he'd been feuding for years - did it, which resulted in the neighbor being arrested and charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, at least until police sussed out what really happened. Oh, yeah, and the guy initially convinced a business partner to lie about the alleged attack as well.

No great legal issues involved that I can tell (but, of course, IANAL), just one of those stupid stories that makes you wonder how somebody could do something like that.

Complete ruling: Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court today upheld the child-rape conviction of a Chelsea man who sought to use his step-granddaughter's diary to bolster his case that she either made the whole thing up or falsely accused him to defuse her mother's anger over what was in the diary about her.

The case against Salvatore Avalos began when the girl's mother discovered her diary while unpacking from a move and read it. In it, the girl, then in the eighth grade, wrote she had been sexually abused - and that her mother was often mean to her.

Avalos attempted to introduce other passages from the diary, in which the girl dreamed of having a boyfriend, wrote she sometimes flirted with boys and admitted lying sometimes, as proof that she could have made up the allegations, but the trial judge refused to allow any questioning on those parts of the diary.

In its ruling today, the SJC said this did not prevent Avalos and his attorney from pursuing other avenues to prove that the mother and daughter had a bad relationship or following other lines of questioning to question the girl's veracity without bringing up the entire contents of her diary.

The entire ruling: Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court today threw out evidence somebody was hiding an illegal gun and drugs under his bed because officers who had originally busted down the door in search of a possible shooting victim shouldn't have conducted a second search of the house.

The case involves a Falmouth man arrested on charges related to the discovery following an altercation with a neighbor in which a gun was fired. Fearing somebody might be lying injured in his unit, they conducted a "sweep." They didn't find anybody, but did find two snarling dogs in the basement. They radioed for animal control, and as they waited - they discussed how Hopkinton police had initially missed the bodies in the Entwhistle murder case and decided to do another search. This time, an officer found the gun and bags of what appeared to be marijuana and heroin.

The court, however, ruled that the initial emergency for which the officers entered the apartment without a warrant - the possibility of a shooting victim inside - had passed and that there was no longer any reason for them to be searching the unit. Therefore, the warrant they eventually got to seize the items was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Complete ruling: Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court today ruled police were wrong to seize 19 bags of heroin from a man at a Roxbury housing project because they had no evidence beforehand that he was doing anything wrong.

The ruling means that if Suffolk County prosecutors continue their case against Oscar Lyles on charges of heroin possession with intent to distribute, they will have to do so without discussing the heroin. Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court today rejected a request for a disability pension from a Turnpike Authority worker who quit the desk job he got after he hurt his back lifting heavy things.

Samuel Foresta, Jr. had been responsible for checking the condition of fire extinguishers along the turnpike - and taking any that needed recharging to a repair facility in Weston. When he injured his back lifting one of the heavy extinguishers - and then again lifting something else - the authority transferred him to a job that required no heavy lifting - essentially supervising other inspectors.

Foresta apparently didn't like that job, however, and quit. And then he filed a disability claim for the original job.

The court, however, found that the authority has the right to change job responsibilities, that it had done everything possible to accommodate Foresta's medical condition and that his back injury did not preclude him working at a desk. Therefore, the court ruled, he was not entitled to permanent disability payments since his injury did not occur while working at the new job.

Complete ruling: Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court today ruled that two cousins can continue to sue the executors of their aunt's will even though their lawyer messed up and filed required paperwork 33 days too late.

The court said it's unfair - against "justice and equity" - to penalize them just because "the delay of thirty-three days was due solely to former counsel's neglect."

The case involves two nieces of Mildred K. Dooling, owner of the Devereux School in Marblehead, who hd long promised the school and property to two nieces in exchange for their years of work at below-market wages there. The suit centers on the question of whether they're entitled to remuneration for a piece of the propert their aunt sold without their knowledge.

The complete ruling: Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court today ruled that the makers of Marlboro cigarettes will have to defend themselves in court from a class-action suit alleging they falsified the amount of tar and nicotine in their "light" cigarettes.

The court rejected the company's arguments that federal health laws outweigh state laws against deceptive advertising, in a ruling on a lawsuit first filed in 1998, in part because the Federal Trade Commission has never set a specific definition for what constitutes a "light" cigarette.

The SJC ruling means the plaintiffs will now get their day in court to prove the cigarettes are, in fact, just as tarry and nicotiney as regular cigarettes.

The ruling follows: Read more

Greg Cook reports the Supreme Judicial Court ruled Wednesday that trustees of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum can tear down buildings and build a new entrance to the museum:

It is in the public interest because it will extend the life of the building, it will reduce the risk of harm to the art objects from the increased number of visitors to the museum, and it will make a visit to the museum more meaningful for viewing art by reducing congestion.

Yay, we won! - Museum press release (OK, link is a paraphrase of what they said).

SJC memorandum.

Modernization details.

So Lady Godiva had best stay out of the Pit - unless she puts up some fliers first.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today a Cambridge woman can face criminal charges for dancing nude in Harvard Square even if she was trying to exercise her First Amendment rights, in this case to protest the commercialization of Christmas, because of a state law banning nudity that "shocks and alarms" people.

Ria Ora was arrested on June 25 (the anti-Christmas?), 2005 on charges of "open and gross lewdness."

A lower court had ruled the arrest unconstitutional. In its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court agreed that people do have a right to take all their clothes down, but only if their displays are not "imposed upon an unsuspecting or unwilling audience" (so strip clubs are OK).

In the court's hearing on the case, the state argued that employees of the kiosk in Harvard Square expressed "shock and alarm" when they called police to report the woman (must've been new employees; who knew there was anything shocking left for Harvard Square?). And when justices asked how Ora's anti-Christmas protest was different from Lady Godiva's political ride, the assistant attorney general arguing the case said the difference was that everybody in the town knew Lady Godiva would be taking her ride and everybody averted their eyes except for that one Peeping Tom.

Watch the oral arguments in the case (requires Windows Media Player, but worth it if only to hear the highest court in the state discussing Lady Godiva).

The Herald reports on Margot Botsford and her husband's contributions to Patrick. Dan Kennedy says the whole thing could blow over - unless Globe metro editor Brian McGrory gets mad about getting scooped and orders full-frontal swarm coverage on the story.