Automatic Standing Rule Allowing Suppression of Evidence Limited for Multiple Charges

A defendant cannot use the state’s automatic standing rule to suppress evidence for one charge where the evidence was not an essential element, even if it can be used in a different charge

Commonwealth v. Miller, 2016 BL 266206, Mass, SJC-10640, 8/17/16.

   The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state’s automatic standing for defendants in suppressing evidence seized on someone else’s property does not extend equally across multiple charges. In the case, a murder suspect was not able to suppress evidence gathered from someone else’s property in relation to his murder charge because the evidence was not essential to the elements of the crime. The same evidence, however, was suppressible in an unlawful possession of a large capacity weapon charge because it was relevant to the charge.

   The court held, “Standing to contest a search is gauged by looking at the individual charges and evaluating whether the items taken were essential to prosecution of the charge.” Although the rule was properly used by the defendant for his unlawful possession charge, the evidence was not essential to the murder charge, thereby not requiring suppression.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Commonwealth_v_Miller_475_Mass_212_2016_Court_Opinion.

Doubts over a Murder Accessory’s Involvement in Crime Stays Execution

Almost six days before execution, a man on death row is receiving habeas corpus review over the extent of his participation in a murder, testing the limits of accomplice accountability in capital cases

In re Wood, 2016 BL 271533, Tex. Crim. App., No. WR-45,500-02, 8/19/16.

   The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed an execution of an accomplice in a murder, granting habeas corpus review of the defendant’s case. The habeas court is directed to review whether the defendant received due process because of falsified testimony and scientific evidence. More importantly, however, the court was directed to examine the “party theory” of liability in capital cases, noting that the death penalty should be reexamined because of “shifting societal views.”

    Under Texas criminal law, criminals convicted under the “party theory” of liability can face the death penalty only if they actively participated in “a violent felony where loss of life was foreseeable or if they acted with reckless indifference to human life.” Under the current set of jury instructions, a jury can convict someone of capital murder if they acted as a party by aiding or abetting another person to commit the offense, or in the alternative, if they acted with the intent to commit robbery and another person was killed as a result with evidence pointing to the defendant’s anticipation that death would have resulted. 

   The trial could have implications for accomplice accountability in capital murder sentencing.

http://src.bna.com/hWr

Accused Murderers Not Allowed Access Victim's Social Media Info

Prior to trial two accused murderers will not be allowed to access the social media info of the victim and a witness.

 

Facebook Inc. v. Superior Court of S.D. City & Cty., 2015 BL 289675, Cal. Ct. App., No. A144315, 9/8/15

    The court quashed subpoenas from the accused that sought the victim and witness's subscriber information from Facebook Inc., Instagram LLC, and Twitter Inc. The social media companies' motions to quash were initially denied by the trial court. The companies petitioned for a write of mandate in the appellate court, and argued that the trial court abused its discretion.

    Though there are certain exceptions to The Stored Communications Act-which prohibits subscriber information disclosure-there is not a mechanism for criminal defendants to gain access to private communication content.

    The court was not convinced that the defendants' constitutional rights to present a complete defense, to cross-examine witnesses, and to have a fair trial, trumped the rights of privacy that the account holders have under the SCA. The court indicated that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and cross-examination does not guarantee pretrial access to otherwise privileged or confidential information.

    The court indicated that the level of sensitivity of the digital information that can be considered in legal proceedings is high. The court was reluctant, and indicated that many other judges are as well, to allow for a broad "everything under the sun" discovery when it comes to electronically stored information of this sort.

     For criminal situations, the SCA only allows for content disclosure to a government agency or entity pursuant to a warrant or by an administrative subpoena or a court order. The government agency is required to give specific facts showing there are reasonable grounds to believe the contents of the communication, the communication here being social media, is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

     This decision is only related to pretrial discovery. The court said that "[n]othing in this opinion would preclude Defendants from seeking at trial the production of the materials sought here (or petitioners again seeking to quash subpoenas), where the trial court would be far better equipped to balance the Defendants' need for effective cross-examination and the policies the SCA is intended to serve."

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Facebook_Inc_v_Superior_Court_of_SF_City__Cty_No_A144315_2015_BL_