Legal Opinion
Bridgeman v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 18, 2017No. SJC 12157PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGants, C.J.
We once again confront the tragic legacy of the misconduct of Annie Dookhan when she was employed as a *300chemist at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute (Hinton lab). In Bridgeman v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 471 Mass. 465, 487 (2015) (Bridgeman I), the petitioners and the intervener, the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), asked that we exercise our broad powers of superintendence to vacate the thousands of drug convictions affected by Dookhan’s misconduct because the time and expense of case-by-case adjudication had become “untenable.” We declined at that…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Padilla v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Strickler v. GreeneSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of EducationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Ross v. MoffittSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2018
- Commonwealth v. ColonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2019
- Commonwealth v. Martinez Commonwealth v. GreenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2018
- In the Matter of an Application for a Criminal ComplaintMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2017
- Care and Protection of M.C.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2018
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.