Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 12/14/1989

Commonwealth v. Ciampa

Citations

  • 547 N.E.2d 314
  • 406 Mass. 257
  • 1989 Mass. LEXIS 420

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • requiring special instructions where the admission of the plea agreement “promis [ing] a sentencing recommendation in exchange for truthful testimony” may have misled the jury to believing that the government knew or was warranting that the witness was telling the truth
  • vouching can occur if attorney “expresses a personal belief in the credibility of a witness . . . or . . . indicates that he or she has knowledge independent of the evidence before the jury verifying a witness’s credibility”
  • cautionary instruction required when jury hears that plea or immunity agreement requires witness to give “truthful” testimony
  • jury instructions must \focus the jury's attention on the incentives that could have influenced [the witness's] testimony\
  • “Repeated references to [a] witness’s obligation to tell the truth should [be] deleted” from plea agreement
  • “plea agreement by itself could be viewed as an implied representation by the government that the witness’s testimony will be truthful”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lucos, Wilkins, Abrams, Nolan, Lynch, O'Connor, Greaney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

111 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

44 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Commonwealth v. Ciampa

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.