Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

368 Mass. 813

Commonwealth v. Eisen

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 5, 1975

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1975-09-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“* "The asserted general importance of certain issues and counsel's able presentation of his client's appeal do not justify a different result. Any personal interest in vindication which a member of the defendant's family may have is not sufficiently substantial to warrant our deciding the appeal.... Although given an opportunity to do so, neither the Commonwealth nor the defendant's counsel has advanced any other reason why a decision on this appeal should be made" (citations omitted).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth v. Hernandez

“[w]hen a criminal defendant dies pending his appeal, normally the judgment should be vacated and the indictment dismissed. This is the general practice elsewhere”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth v. Hernandez

Relies on St. Pierre v. United States · Seaboard Shipping Corp. v. Moran Inland Waterways Corp. · Durham v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-09-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2019

7 state decisions

3019751980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The defendant died following the argument of this appeal under G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G. Earlier convictions arising out of the same events were considered in Commonwealth v. Eisen, 358 Mass. 740 (1971), and Eisen v. Picard, 452 F. 2d 860 (1st Cir. 1971), cert. den. 406 U. S. 950 (1972). Thereafter the defendant was retried, and he has brought this appeal from a conviction of murder in the second degree. When a criminal defendant dies pending his appeal, normally the judgment should be vacated and the indictment dismissed. This is the general practice *814elsewhere. Durham v. United States, 401 U. S. 481 (1971). State v. Carter, 299 Atl. 2d 891 (Maine 1973). State v. Marzilli, 111 R. I. 392 (1973). The asserted general importance of certain issues and counsel’s able presentation of his client’s appeal do not justify a different result. Any personal interest in vindication which a member of the defendant’s family may have is not sufficiently substantial to warrant our deciding the appeal. Cf. St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U. S. 41 (1943); Wetzel v. Ohio, 371 U. S. 62, 65 (1962) (Douglas, J., concurring). Although given an opportunity to do so, neither the Commonwealth nor the defendant’s counsel has advanced any other reason why a decision on this appeal should be made. The matter of counsel fees will be decided by a single justice of this court.

P. J. Piscitelli (Robert E. Klein with him) for the defendant.Helen Murphy Doona, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

¶2Judgment on indictment No. 41052 vacated; the case is remanded to the Superior Court where that indictment shall be dismissed.

/368/mass/813 · .json · Public domain