Legal Opinion

Lovett v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 10, 1984PublishedCited by 16 opinions

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

  1. Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  3. Wade v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  4. Illinois v. SomervilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. Serfass v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. First Pennsylvania Mortgage Trust v. Dorchester Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  2. Commonwealth v. MurchisonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
  3. Commonwealth v. DeMinicoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
  4. Commonwealth v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
  5. Commonwealth v. Kent K.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API