The Melendez Diaz Windfall Continues

Here is a one week sampling of the appeals court case docket of dismissed cases due to the ruling. It helps to put in perspective just how largescale the loss of Melendez Diaz was, and the impact it had on the Police and District Attorneys office ability to prosecute criminal defendants successfully. From April 27th to April 30th the following cases were lost due to the holding in Melendez Diaz.

COMMONWEALTH vs. KELLY ARZATE 09-P-224 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 – unlawful distribution of a class B substance (cocaine), G. L. c. 94C, § 32A(c)&(d), and violation of the controlled substance law (school/park zone), G. L. c. 94C, § 32J.

COMMONWEALTH vs. LUIS O. FLORES 07-P-1606 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 – distribution of a class B substance, G. L. c. 94C, § 32A(b), and acquitted of having done so near a school or park, G. L. c. 94C, § 32J. The defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the subsequent offense portion of the distribution indictment, and thereafter was found guilty by the trial judge.

COMMONWEALTH vs. MORRIS D. ROBINSON 09-P-995 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 – convictions, after a Superior Court jury trial, of trafficking in cocaine, and of committing a drug violation in a school zone.

COMMONWEALTH vs. DECIO R. MOEDA 09-P-221 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 – convicted of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance and unlawful distribution of a controlled substance in a school zone.

COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBERT A. PERARD 08-P-1946 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 – guilty verdicts on three counts of an indictment against the defendant: (1) possession of a firearm in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10(a); (2) possession of a large capacity weapon or a large capacity feeding device in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10(m); and (3) possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of two violent crimes in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10G.

Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel’s decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.

Attorney Ronald A. Sellon

About Attorney Ronald A. Sellon

Ronald A. Sellon is a licensed Attorney in the state of Massachusetts and U.S. District Court, Massachusetts as well as a Sergeant with a Municipal Police Department and U.S. military Veteran. Additionally, he has taught Criminal Procedure at the Massachusetts State Police Academy in New Braintree and has written a text on Criminal Procedure for police field training officer programs. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy, was a 2008 recipient of the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (Mass C.O.P.) Presidents award and holds a Bachelors Degree in Law Enforcement, a Masters Degree in Criminal Justice Administration, and a Juris Doctor Law Degree. Questions related to content material may be directed to RSellon@PoliceLegalPromotions.com
This entry was posted in Criminal Law & Procedure, General. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s