Legal Opinion

Vaccari

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 13, 2011PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBotsford, J.

The two appellants before the court, Janet Vac-cari and Deana Pistone (collectively, witnesses), appeal from the denial by a single justice of their petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. In their petition, the witnesses sought relief from Superior Court orders granting them immunity pursuant to G. L. c. 233, §§ 20C-20E, and ordering them to testify in the criminal trial of David Forlizzi and Fred Battista. We conclude *757that the witnesses have not shown that they cannot obtain adequate relief from the challenged orders in the normal process of appellate review, and therefore, the denial…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Kastigar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. United States v. William J. CintoloCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
  4. Attorney General v. ColletonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  5. Cronin v. StrayerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. LeClairMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
  2. In Re: Grand Jury InvestigationMassachusetts Superior Court · 2020
  3. S.W. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2026
  4. State v. FinleyCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API