Massachusetts Appeals Court· 1/9/1989

Commonwealth v. Curcio

Citations

532 N.E.2d 699
26 Mass. App. Ct. 738
1989 Mass. App. LEXIS 10

How courts have described this case

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

“With the informer’s identity known, the Commonwealth could not claim the ‘informer’s privilege’ of barring [her] testimony . . .”
“With the informer’s identity known, the Commonwealth could not claim the ‘informer’s privilege’ . . .”
where the defendant required the address of a known informer in order to serve him with a subpoena, the Commonwealth “must offer the defense whatever information it had about the informer’s location” [emphasis added]
“The Commonwealth, neither by itself nor by connivance with the informer, was to put any obstruction between the defense and the informer, and it must offer the defense whatever information it had about the informer’s location”
Commonwealth had no duty to locate witness not under its control

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dreben, Kaplan, Fine

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

Other cases with this 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.