Preview:

Commonwealth v. Jules Opinion Summary: After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police and his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the motion judge did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress and concluding that the Commonwealth satisfied its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant made a knowing, willing, and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights and that his statements were otherwise voluntarily made; and (2) the motion judge did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial on the ground that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a pretrial motion to suppress a witness's identification of Defendant, as Defendant failed to demonstrate a likelihood that a motion to suppress this evidence would have been successful. COMMONWEALTH vs. Jean Claude JULES. SJC-10248. Plymouth. November 9, 2012. - March 7, 2013. Homicide. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, New trial, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of confession, Interpreter, Waiver, Assistance of counsel, Witness, Capital case. Constitutional Law, Voluntariness of statement, Assistance of counsel, Identification, Witness, Admissions and confessions, Identification. Due Process of Law. Waiver. Interpreter. Identification. Witness. INDICTMENT found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 3, 2003. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Joseph M. Walker, III, J.; the case was tried before Richard J. Chin, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on April 13, 2010, was heard by him. Stephen Paul Maidman for the defendant. Robert C. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, & Gants, JJ. IRELAND, C.J. On February 16, 2007, a jury convicted the defendant, Jean Claude Jules, of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. [FN1] Represented by new counsel on appeal, the defendant argues error in the denial of his motion to suppress statements and motion for a new trial. [FN2] He also seeks relief pursuant to G.L. c. 278,

Download sjc-10248.pdf

Massachusetts Law