Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 5/20/2014

Commonwealth v. Rosa

Citations

468 Mass. 231
9 N.E.3d 832
2014 WL 2016718
2014 Mass. LEXIS 391

How courts have described this case

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

“expert testimony is useful where speakers engage in coded conversation or speak about a subject using specialized vocabulary”
jail call in which defendant used 5 racial epithet as term of familiarity not unduly prejudicial
\the question is not whether admission of the [bad act evidence] was prejudicial; it is rather whether it was unduly prejudicial\ [emphasis added]
court has generally validated regulations serving \the legitimate penological purpose of advancing the security of prisons\
\There is no suggestion in any of our cases that it is necessary to make an individualized determination whether the monitoring and recording of a particular inmate call serves a penological purpose\
“The defendant argues that jail officials violated his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments by monitoring and recording his telephone conversation and by forwarding a summary of it to law enforcement officials . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Botsford

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

34 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.