Lovett v. Commonwealth
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtAbrams, J.
The defendant appeals from a determination by a District Court judge sitting in the jury-of-six session that there was manifest necessity for a mistrial based on defense counsel’s opening. She therefore allowed the Commonwealth’s motion for a mistrial. On appeal, the defendant bases his asser- tian that the judge erred when she found manifest necessity for a mistrial over the defendant’s objection oh three grounds: First, the judge should not have found defense counsel’s opening remarks so prejudicial to the Commonwealth as to necessitate a mistrial. Second, the judge inadequately explored…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Wade v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Illinois v. SomervilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Serfass v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- First Pennsylvania Mortgage Trust v. Dorchester Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Commonwealth v. MurchisonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Commonwealth v. DeMinicoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- Commonwealth v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
- Commonwealth v. Kent K.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.