Petition of the District Attorney for the Northern District

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Petition of the District Attorney for the Northern District

502 N.E.2d 511, 399 Mass. 1001, 1987 Mass. LEXIS 1366

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 8, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 502 N.E.2d 511 (Petition of the District Attorney for the Northern District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Petition of the District Attorney for the Northern District, 502 N.E.2d 511, 399 Mass. 1001, 1987 Mass. LEXIS 1366 (Mass. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a purported appeal by the district attorney for the Northern District from an order entered by a single justice of this court granting only part of his application under G. L. c. 233, § 20E (1984 ed.), for immunity for a witness who had invoked her privilege against self-incrimination before a grand jury. Three Justices of this court (Hennessey, C.J., Wilkins, J., and Lynch, J.) are of the opinion that the appeal is properly here (G. L. c. 231, §114 [1984 ed.]) and, in any event, the substantive issues should be addressed by the court pursuant to this court’s powers of general superintendency. Three Justices of this court (Liacos, J., Nolan, J., and O’Connor, J.) are of the opinion that there is no statutory right of appeal from the single justice’s order and that the court may not exercise its general superintendency powers in the circumstances. The single justice (Abrams, J.) is aware of the provision in Mass. R. A. P. 24 (b), 365 Mass. 872 (1974), that permits her participation in the full court’s decision (because of the equal division of her colleagues) but elects in her discretion not to participate in deciding the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

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

This is a purported appeal by the district attorney for the Northern District from an order entered by a single justice of this court granting only part of his application under G. L. c. 233, § 20E (1984 ed.), for immunity for a witness who had invoked her privilege against self-incrimination before a grand jury. Three Justices of this court (Hennessey, C.J., Wilkins, J., and Lynch, J.) are of the opinion that the appeal is properly here (G. L. c. 231, §114 [1984 ed.]) and, in any event, the substantive issues should be addressed by the court pursuant to this court’s powers of general superintendency. Three Justices of this court (Liacos, J., Nolan, J., and O’Connor, J.) are of the opinion that there is no statutory right of appeal from the single justice’s order and that the court may not exercise its general superintendency powers in the circumstances. The single justice (Abrams, J.) is aware of the provision in Mass. R. A. P. 24 (b), 365 Mass. 872 (1974), that permits her participation in the full court’s decision (because of the equal division of her colleagues) but elects in her discretion not to participate in deciding the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 N.E.2d 511, 399 Mass. 1001, 1987 Mass. LEXIS 1366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petition-of-the-district-attorney-for-the-northern-district-mass-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack