Commonwealth v. Mele
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
The Commonwealth argues that Duquette, at 846, permits the procedure at the first tier to be more informal because “the defendant can still appeal to the jury of six session and obtain a trial de novo.” If, however, as here, *959the defendant does not claim such an appeal, the proceedings have “the finality normally associated with second tier proceedings.” Id. at 847.
In situations where the proceedings are made final, both the Supreme Judicial Court and this court have required the colloquy prescribed by Duquette for use at the second tier in District Courts. Thus, according to Duquette, the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. ConnorMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1982
3Cited by17 opinions
- Lane T. Mele v. Fitchburg District CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
- Commonwealth v. GrantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
- Commonwealth v. MahadeoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
- United States v. Christian Modest NicholasCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
- United States v. PayneDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1995
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.