Narrative Opinion Summary
Calzado contends that if the witness tampering indictment is not dismissed, the evidence related to it would be utilized against him in the murder charge. The document asserts that any impropriety in evidence admission can be adequately addressed through the appeal process, and the potential time consumption or uncertainty of this remedy does not render it inadequate. The single justice acted within her discretion by denying extraordinary relief, and the judgment is affirmed. Furthermore, it is noted that dismissing the witness tampering indictment may not prevent the use of this evidence in the murder trial, as it could be admissible independently. Calzado's petition lacked any argument demonstrating that the motion judge committed an unremediable error, which is necessary to justify intervention under G. L. c. 211. This absence of argument supports the decision to uphold the single justice's ruling.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adequacy of Appellate Remediessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Concerns about improper evidence admission can be addressed through the appeal process, and potential time or uncertainty of appeals does not make them inadequate.
Reasoning: The document asserts that any impropriety in evidence admission can be adequately addressed through the appeal process, and the potential time consumption or uncertainty of this remedy does not render it inadequate.
Admissibility of Evidence in Related Chargessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The use of evidence from a dismissed indictment may still be admissible in a related trial if it meets independent admissibility standards.
Reasoning: Furthermore, it is noted that dismissing the witness tampering indictment may not prevent the use of this evidence in the murder trial, as it could be admissible independently.
Discretion of Single Justice in Denying Extraordinary Reliefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A single justice has the discretion to deny extraordinary relief when there is no substantial argument of unremediable error by the motion judge.
Reasoning: The single justice acted within her discretion by denying extraordinary relief, and the judgment is affirmed.
Requirement for Demonstrating Unremediable Errorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: To justify intervention under G. L. c. 211, it is necessary to demonstrate that the motion judge committed an unremediable error, which Calzado failed to do.
Reasoning: Calzado's petition lacked any argument demonstrating that the motion judge committed an unremediable error, which is necessary to justify intervention under G. L. c. 211.