Hey, there! Log in / Register
Appeals court reverses another conviction because nobody appeared in court to testify man's gun was really a gun
By adamg on Tue, 11/17/2009 - 10:43am
For the fourth time in recent weeks, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has reversed a gun-possession conviction because prosecutors did not have a "ballistician" testify that the device the defendant was charged with possessing was actually a gun that could be fired.
As in the earlier cases, the court ruled this violated the defendant's constitutional right to confront an accuser.
In the case against Daniel Hollister in Greenfield District Court, a Franklin County assistant district attorney produced a certificate from a ballistics expert that the loaded gun found in his truck's glove compartment was, in fact, a gun for which he did not have a license.
However, the court agreed with Hollister's lawyer he should have had the opportunity to question the expert on whether the device was really "a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured."
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Nice to know Woody Allen is
Nice to know Woody Allen is running our court system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UHOgkDbVqc
You beat me to it!
You beat me to it!
That explains a lot,
such as why pedophiles get a free pass around here.
-----------------------------------------
who and the what now?
Blame Scalia
Well, if you don't like these outcomes, you have to blame that evil, right-wing, cop-loving, defendant-hating SCOTUS justice Antonin Scalia. Oh, wait a minute...
It's SCOTUS's decision in the recent Massachusetts v. Melendez(sp?) case that requires lab techs, etc. to be present at trial that's causing this.
Martha Coakley
argued Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts in front of the Supreme Course herself. According to some, her performance that day not do justice to the Commonwealth's case. Link:
Yes, Our Martha really did
Yes, Our Martha really did humiliate herself in front of the Supreme Court.
Local Yokel
She not only doesn't understand the existance of California, her "I wouldn't have voted yes on that" grandstand means that she either needs some school house rock to understand how the legislature works, or thinks we are all stupid.
She also massively humiliated herself and MA with the whole "sinister device" quote on the Mooninites having "wires and batteries", now of youtube fame.
She's a local yokel and doesn't have an opinion that isn't pollster tested. I'm not a big Capuano booster, but I'm at least confident that he knows his job and won't make us all look stupid for electing him.
Not ridiculous
He was let off by a rule that exists to protect us against wrongful prosecution. While it may sometimes seem like a ridiculous procedural thing, it's an important part of the constitutional protections that we all enjoy.