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