Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

COMMONWEALTH vs. ANTHONY CIMINERA (and two companion cases). Commonwealth vs. David Jarjura and Commonwealth vs.George Navikauskis.

We allowed the defendants' petitions for further appellate review. The defendants claimed that in considering whether extraneous prejudicial information reached the jury, the trial judge and the Appeals Court incorrectly interpreted Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979). The defendants also claimed error in the denial of their motions for a new trial.

We have reviewed the entire record. We are in substantial agreement with the reasoning of the Appeals Court. See Commonwealth v. Ciminera, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 101 (1981). We find no reversible error, and we affirm.

Denial of motions for a new trial affirmed. Judgments of the Superior Court affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

COMMONWEALTH v. CIMINERA
(Nov 3, 1981)