Commonwealth v. Vieira

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a witness’ statement is exculpatory where its variance with previous statements permits a challenge to the credibility of a key prosecution witness
• no prejudice where substance of withheld evidence was cumulative of information already known to defendant
• victim told prosecutor two weeks before trial version substantially different from prior account, connecting defendants to crimes
• no prejudice where defendant thoroughly cross-examined key witness notwithstanding Commonwealth’s delay in providing exculpatory evidence
• assertions made in footnote do not rise to level of appellate argument under requirements of Mass.R.A.P. 16[a][4]
• assertions made in a footnote do not rise . to the level of an appellate argument under requirements of Mass.R.A.R 16[a][4]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).