Commonwealth v. Lunden

How courts have described this case

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

• “In the [prior] case, the defendant did not move to suppress the blood evidence match, and therefore despite the defendant’s conviction the [prior] proceeding did not result in a final judgment on the merits....”
• “Under the “‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine . . ., evidence must be suppressed in circumstances in which it is deemed to have been tainted by a prior search or seizure that was unlawful.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).