Commonwealth v. D'Alessio

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. D'Alessio

356 N.E.2d 712, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 851, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 653

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedNovember 17, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 356 N.E.2d 712 (Commonwealth v. D'Alessio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. D'Alessio, 356 N.E.2d 712, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 851, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 653 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

The denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment returned against him was correct. There is no merit whatsoever to the defendant’s claim that that denial was erroneous on the ground that he “will be greatly embarrassed in his trial in that all of his witnesses were called for examination by the Grand Jury and he himself was called and compelled either to testify or claim his privilege.” There is nothing in the record to indicate that the prosecuting attorney overstepped his proper function before the grand jury. See generally Attorney Gen. v. Pelletier, 240 Mass. 264, 307-308 (1922). Furthermore, the recent case of United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (1976), on which the defendant places so much reliance, disposes of every other argument raised by him in his brief.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment returned against him was correct. There is no merit whatsoever to the defendant’s claim that that denial was erroneous on the ground that he “will be greatly embarrassed in his trial in that all of his witnesses were called for examination by the Grand Jury and he himself was called and compelled either to testify or claim his privilege.” There is nothing in the record to indicate that the prosecuting attorney overstepped his proper function before the grand jury. See generally Attorney Gen. v. Pelletier, 240 Mass. 264, 307-308 (1922). Furthermore, the recent case of United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (1976), on which the defendant places so much reliance, disposes of every other argument raised by him in his brief.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 N.E.2d 712, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 851, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-dalessio-massappct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack