Legal Opinion

State v. Merski

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided October 14, 1981No. 80-341PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Per curiam

This is an interlocutory transfer by the Superior Court (Souter, J.) of questions posed in several motions filed by the defendant.

The first motions seek to suppress evidence and testimony as being tainted by an alleged breach of our Rule 37(18), which requires that all records and proceedings involving allegations of misconduct by an attorney remain confidential. We hold that a breach of confidentiality, if any, by this court’s Professional Conduct Committee (Committee) does not render the proposed evidence and testimony inadmissible in a subsequent prosecution of the defendant for theft…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. In Re RuffaloSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Rogers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  4. Spevack v. KleinSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. Emslie v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Brooks v. New Hampshire Supreme CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
  2. In the Matter of SaabMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
  3. State v. SandsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1983
  4. State v. ChaissonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1983
  5. State v. ThresherSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982

17 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