Commonwealth v. Burkett
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
1. We do not consider the defendant’s present contention that the judge should have excluded the in-court identification of him by the witness Jones on the ground that that witness had, at the request of the police, participated in a pretrial photographic identification of the defendant at a time when the defendant was already in custody and available for a corporeal lineup; the record (especially the transcript of the pretrial hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress) is quite clear that no such question was raised or passed on below. Compare Commonwealth v. Proctor, 355 Mass. 504, 506…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Pate v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Drope v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Commonwealth v. JonesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Commonwealth v. VailesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Commonwealth v. PaintenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
- Commonwealth v. WhitlockMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1995
- Cook v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
- Commonwealth v. ConnorsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1982
- Commonwealth v. EnnisMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.