U.S. v. Mason

4 Citing cases

  1. Tempest v. State

    C.A. No. PM 04-1896 (R.I. Super. Jul. 13, 2015)

    In light of Mr. Tempest's pointed accusations, this Court would be complicit in a gross miscarriage of justice if it were to simply slam the courthouse doors shut to such claims that strike at the heart of due process guarantees. See Moore v. Commonwealth, 357 S.W.3d 470, 495 (Ky. 2011), as modified on denial of reh'g (Nov. 23, 2011) (holding, in addressing whether laches bars postconviction relief in a particular case, that the alleged prejudice "is outweighed by the [state's] concomitant duty to pursue justice and serve the law, which is owed to everyone in this [state], including criminal defendants and convicted persons"); United States v. Mason, 497 F.Supp.2d 328, 329 (D.R.I. 2007) ("[T]o deny the complainants in this case the opportunity to pursue their serious-and partially corroborated-allegations in a judicial forum, with its attendant guarantees of independence and impartiality, would be to render this Court nothing more than a shill of the government[.]").

  2. United States v. Isom

    580 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that defendant was not entitled to withdraw guilty plea despite his concerns about insufficient time to review discovery materials prior to entering his plea

    Isom theorizes that he and Mason were victims of the scheme and that the seized drugs were planted.See United States v. Mason, 497 F.Supp.2d 328 (D.R.I. 2007). The "planted drugs" scenario is how Isom's appellate brief describes Mason's suppression claim.

  3. United States v. Isom

    CR No. 06-106-S (D.R.I. Apr. 26, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    After a two-day Franks hearing at which several witnesses (including Detective Partridge) testified, this Court denied Mason's motion to suppress in a detailed written decision. See generally United States v. Mason, 497 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D.R.I. 2007). In its ruling, this Court found that, although Mason's claim was plausible because the attorneys and paralegal in question had all been indicted for a similar scheme, Mason was unable to implicate the warrant's affiant -- Sergeant Partridge -- in the overall scheme, or in connection with any wrongdoing in Mason's case.

  4. United States v. Monroe

    264 F. Supp. 3d 376 (D.R.I. 2017)   Cited 12 times
    Finding no authority to support claim that minimization alone rendered confession involuntary

    But listening to the audio makes that contention not only plausible but probable. Moreover, situations like this not only show the value of recording—a topic on which this court has expressed strong views in the past, see United States v. Mason, 497 F.Supp.2d 328, 335–36 (D.R.I. 2007) —but also suggests that in an era where recording is becoming ubiquitous, see Alan M. Gershel, A Review of the Law in Jurisdictions Requiring Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations, 16 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 9 (2010), the case law holding that law enforcement officers need not follow up to clarify whether a suspect intends to invoke his rights, see Davis, 512 U.S. at 461, 114 S.Ct. 2350, might be due for reconsideration.Dudley, 804 F.3d at 513.