Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commonwealth v. Vasquez

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 26, 2010No. SJC-10577Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSpina, J.

The court has determined that the defendant should not be held to a lesser standard of review because of a failure to object to the admission of the certificates of drug analysis (drug certificates), where the circumstances relegated the act of objecting to an exercise in futility, and for reasons of fundamental fairness. I do not agree.

I agree that the trial judge was required to apply the law as stated in Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279 (2005). Ante at 356-357. However, that is not determinative of the question presented here. There is nothing unusual about requiring a litigant to…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  3. Spade v. Lynn & Boston RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
  4. United States v. Jaime Leon Gomez-NorenaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  5. Dziokonski v. BabineauMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978

16 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