Ī District Court judge did not abuse his discretion in excludingįrom evidence at a criminal trial three of the complaining Permitted to consider the credibility of the witness. Testimony in denying the defendant's motion for requiredįindings of not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth'sĬase, because the judge, in ruling on the motion, was not Not totally foreclosed in that the jury later heard theĬomplaining witness recant the false testimony įurther, the judge did not err in relying on the false Testimony on cross-examination, where cross-examination was Of the complaining witness in light of that witness's false Trial from the judge's failure to strike the direct testimony No substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice arose at a criminal 99 D 1 b, exempts the use ofĪn office intercommunication system in the ordinary course ofīusiness from the general prohibition of the interception of Through the station's intercom system, where the Massachusetts The local police station and that certain officers heard Motion to sup-press incriminating statements that he made at Motion to suppress, Striking of testimony, Prior conviction, Required finding.Ī District Court judge properly denied a criminal defendant's 283 OctoNorfolk County Present: GREENBERG, BECK, & MILLS, JJ.Įvidence, Wiretap, Cross-examination, Prior conviction.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |