Neil L. Lynch

The case involved a defendant convicted of criminal contempt for violating an injunction after a Superior Court trial. The sole issue on appeal concerned the Commonwealth's use of peremptory challenges to exclude three prospective jurors with Irish-sounding surnames, which the defendant argued was based on ethnicity. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reversed the conviction, agreeing with the Appeals Court that the prosecutor failed to provide adequate neutral explanations for the challenges. The court reasoned that an implicit finding of a discriminatory pattern had been made, surnames could support an inference of ethnicity here, and the challenges violated the defendant's right to nondiscriminatory jury selection.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case arose from the defendant's convictions on thirteen indictments, including aggravated rape, indecent assault and battery, kidnapping, and assault by means of a dangerous weapon. Following the Appeals Court's determination that the Commonwealth improperly used peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors, the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether the prosecutor had excluded those jurors on the basis of race. The court upheld the trial judge's ruling that the challenges were permissible, concluding that the prosecutor offered legitimate, race-neutral explanations tied to each juror's individual circumstances, such as equivocal responses about police testimony, family connections to the area, limited education affecting comprehension of time concepts, and planned travel. The judge's acceptance of these explanations was supported by the record and the deference afforded to trial courts in evaluating juror demeanor and responses during voir dire. The judgments were therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Carlos A. Luna, a Boston police officer, who was convicted of perjury and filing false police reports after admitting in an affidavit that he had included false statements in a search warrant application related to a drug investigation that resulted in the death of his partner. Luna appealed his convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing primarily that his affidavit was involuntary, which compelled him to testify at trial in violation of his constitutional rights, along with various claims about jury instructions and extraneous influences on the jury. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the convictions and the denial of the new trial motion, holding that the affidavit was voluntary under the humane practice rule, that Luna's testimony corroborated rather than contradicted the affidavit so Harrison v. United States did not apply, and that the other claims of error lacked merit.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a Worcester County grand jury investigation targeting a closely held corporation and its two brother shareholders and directors. The individuals invoked their privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights to refuse to produce corporate records in response to a subpoena duces tecum directed at the corporation. The Commonwealth sought to compel the appointment of an alternate keeper of records to deliver the documents, but a Superior Court judge denied the motion and quashed the subpoena, reasoning that Article 12 provided broader protection than federal precedent. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed on interlocutory appeal, holding that the privilege against self-incrimination is personal and does not extend to corporations or their records, so the corporation must comply with the subpoena. The court reasoned that while individuals retain their personal protections, those do not shield corporate documents, and the corporation itself has no Article 12 rights.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant, a Roman Catholic priest, who was convicted after a jury-waived trial of violating G. L. c. 272, § 29A(a) by taking photographs of a ten-year-old boy in a locker room that depicted portions of the boy's pubic and genital area while the boy posed partially clothed. The defendant argued that his conduct did not fall within the statute because the nudity was not intentional or encouraged and that the statute and its definition of nudity in § 31 were unconstitutional as overbroad or criminalizing protected expression. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence supported findings that the defendant knowingly permitted and encouraged the exhibition for lascivious purposes, that the statute's requirement of lascivious intent cured prior overbreadth concerns identified in earlier cases like Commonwealth v. Oakes, and that no separate state constitutional claim had been preserved.

criminal lawfree speech

The case involved a physician appealing the revocation of his medical license by the Board of Registration in Medicine after findings that he had sexual contact with four patients, constituting malpractice, gross misconduct, and negligence under state statutes and regulations. The plaintiff argued that he was entitled to separate hearings on his objections to the administrative magistrate's recommended decision and on any sanctions, that combined proceedings violated due process, and that the board's decision lacked substantial evidence. The court affirmed the revocation, holding that statutes and regulations did not require separate hearings, due process was satisfied by notice and an opportunity to be heard during the evidentiary process, and the record contained substantial evidence supporting the findings. The plaintiff had declined to participate in the final board hearing after his request for separate proceedings was denied.

procedurehealthcarebusiness & regulatory