Corsetti v. Com.
| Citation | 411 N.E.2d 466,381 Mass. 778 |
| Parties | Paul CORSETTI v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Decision Date | 15 October 1980 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Thomas C. Troy, Boston (Michael Riley, Boston, with him), for plaintiff.
William L. Pardee, Asst. Dist. Atty. (Edward R. Gargiulo, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., with him), for the Commonwealth.
Gerald May, Sr., Boston, for The Hearst Corporation, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and WILKINS, LIACOS and ABRAMS, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The Commonwealth has filed a motion to expand the record to include the fact that the grand jury with which we are concerned is no longer in service. G.L. c. 277, § 1. We allow the motion. Thus the dispute between the parties as to whether Corsetti must appear before the grand jury to testify is moot. See generally Blake v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 369 Mass. 701, 708, 341 N.E.2d 902 (1976). The matter is to be remanded to the Superior Court for such further proceedings as now may be required.
So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Roche, Matter of
-
Com. v. Raczkowski
...grand juries. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. at 371 n. 8, 86 S.Ct. at 1536 n. 8. Raczkowski relies on Corsetti v. Commonwealth, 381 Mass. 778, 411 N.E.2d 466 (1980), where the court held that a witness's appeal from a contempt order was moot, because "the grand jury with which we are......
- Demirdjian v. Star Market Co.