Commonwealth v. Blood
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
400 Mass. 61, 507 N.E.2d 1029 (1987)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
James Blood and Ernest Lorenzen (defendants) formed a conspiracy with several other individuals, including Charles Hudson, to break into a smelting and refining company. The conspirators’ goal was to steal several million dollars’ worth of gold bars that were stored on-site. Hudson, however, was a police informant. While the group was planning the heist, Hudson recorded and transmitted several conversations involving Blood and Lorenzen. Neither Blood nor Lorenzen consented to the recording of the conversations. But a Massachusetts statute made admissible electronic surveillance in which police obtained consent of at least one participant to the conversation. Accordingly, the recordings were used at trial. Blood and Lorenzen appealed, claiming that admission of the recordings violated their rights under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Liacos, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
