Commonwealth v. Burbank

13 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Milley

    67 Mass. App. Ct. 685 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 10 times
    In Milley, no actual conflict existed where "[t]here [was] nothing to show that the tainted conduct of Marshall and Mills was in conflict with [the attorney's] duty to represent the defendant."

    "The defendant bears the burden of proving that a genuine conflict of interest existed, and must do so without relying on mere conjecture or speculation." Commonwealth v. Burbank, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 103 (1989). The defendant went to some length at the evidentiary hearing to attempt to show the nature of what he alleges was Cacchiotti's conflicting financial interest.

  2. Commonwealth v. Carsetti

    53 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that the judge did not abuse his discretion where the judge's rationale for denying the defendant's motion was supported by the record

    At the outset, we note that the obligation to come forward and inform the trial judge of the need for a continuance prior to the date of trial rests on counsel, not the defendant. See Commonwealth v. Burbank, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 104 (1989). See also United States v. Prochilo, 187 F.3d 221, 226-227 (1st Cir. 1999).

  3. Burbank v. Maloney

    47 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D. Mass. 1999)   Cited 6 times

    On March 8, 1989, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed both the conviction and the denial of the motion for a new trial. See Commonwealth v. Burbank, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 534 N.E.2d 1180 (1989). On June 9, 1989, the Supreme Judicial Court denied Burbank's Request for Further Appellate Review.

  4. Commonwealth v. Pena

    462 Mass. 183 (Mass. 2012)   Cited 65 times
    Indicating that where waiver of counsel is “a consequence of his conduct,” S.J.C. Rule 3:10 “is not applicable.”

    Commonwealth v. Dunne, supra at 13, 474 N.E.2d 538, quoting Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). See Commonwealth v. Burbank, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 97, 106, 534 N.E.2d 1180 (1989). However, this is not an absolute right, and in some circumstances, it may be “subordinate to the proper administration of justice.”

  5. Commonwealth v. Haley

    413 Mass. 770 (Mass. 1992)   Cited 66 times
    Giving charge was not abuse of discretion after four hours of deliberation in noncomplex case

    There was no abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Habarek, 402 Mass. 105, 108 (1988); Commonwealth v. Burbank, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 107 (1989). (b) Ineffective assistance. The motion judge accepted the defendant's assertion that Mr. Farese had provided him with constitutionally ineffective assistance at the trial.

  6. Commonwealth v. Burbank

    405 Mass. 1201 (Mass. 1989)   Cited 1 times

    June 9, 1989Further appellate review denied: Reported below: 27 Mass. App. Ct. 97 (1989).

  7. Commonwealth v. Mejia

    92 Mass. App. Ct. 1116 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017)

    The defendant's right to "a fair and just hearing" was not "thwarted by his [alleged] absence" at those pretrial hearings. Commonwealth v. Burbank, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 105 (1989).Order denying motion for new trial affirmed.

  8. Commonwealth v. Delnegro

    75 N.E.3d 73 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 9 times
    Ordering interlocutory appeal dismissed where neither doctrine of present execution nor any court rule authorized appeal

    The longer Hepburn continues to represent the defendant, the greater the learning curve for her successor and the greater the possibility of ineffective assistance of counsel in the pretrial proceedings she does undertake. We therefore conclude that, in the present case, the court's interests in maintaining the high ethical standards of the legal profession and "the public's interest in the fair, efficient, and orderly administration of justice," Commonwealth v. Burbank , 27 Mass.App.Ct. 97, 106, 534 N.E.2d 1180 (1989), outweigh the defendant's right to chosen counsel at and before trial in both cases.Conclusion . For the reasons stated, the defendant's interlocutory appeals from the disqualification orders are dismissed.

  9. Commonwealth v. Connors

    985 N.E.2d 874 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013)

    “The defendant bears the burden of proving that a genuine conflict of interest existed, and must do so without relying on mere conjecture or speculation.” Commonwealth v. Burbank, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 97, 103 (1989). In this case, the judge neither abused his discretion nor otherwise committed an error of law in concluding that the defendant offered no credible evidence of an actual conflict.

  10. Commonwealth v. Perez

    65 Mass. App. Ct. 259 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 2 times

    The defendant does not contend that the prior recorded testimony would be inadmissible for any reason other than the Commonwealth's purported failure to demonstrate Troncoso's unavailability. We have examined cases in which the Commonwealth's efforts were insufficient to warrant the judge's conclusion that the Commonwealth had made a good faith effort to produce the witness, see Commonwealth v. Florek, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 414, 416 (2000); cases where the unavailability was quite apparent, see Commonwealth v. Hunt, 38 Mass. App. Ct. at 295; and cases where the Commonwealth's efforts were held to have been sufficient, see Commonwealth v. Siegfriedt, 402 Mass. 424, 427-428 (1988); Commonwealth v. Childs, 413 Mass. at 260-261; Commonwealth v. Roberio, 440 Mass. at 247-250; Commonwealth v. Sena, 441 Mass. at 832-834; Commonwealth v. Burbank, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 109 (1989). All of the cases are dependent on the facts presented.