Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Lanigan

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided July 20, 1992PublishedCited by 63 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLiacos, C.J.

After a consolidated pretrial hearing, a judge

of the Superior Court ruled that evidence regarding forensic tests of the defendants’ deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) could not be admitted at the defendants’ criminal trials. The Commonwealth sought leave to appeal from a single justice of this court. The single justice concluded that the order of the Superior Court judge was the equivalent of the allowance of a motion to suppress and, hence, allowed the Commonwealth leave to appeal to the full court. G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1990 ed.). See Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (b) (2), 378 Mass. 842 (1978). We affirm the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. Commonwealth v. CurninMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  3. Commonwealth v. LykusMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  4. United States v. YeeDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1991

3Cited by63 opinions

  1. State v. BibleArizona Supreme Court · 1993
  2. United States v. John Ray Bonds (91-3610) Mark Verdi (91-3609) and Steven Wayne Yee (91-3608)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
  3. Commonwealth v. LaniganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
  4. State v. HarveySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997
  5. State v. CauthronWashington Supreme Court · 1993

58 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