Gary Katzmann

The case arose from the accidental death of Charles Milot, who took a Glock pistol from Thomas Hughes's locked bedroom without permission, attempted to return it to its case, and fatally shot himself in the leg. Plaintiff Elizabeth Ryan, as administratrix of Milot's estate, sued Hughes for negligence and wrongful death and sued Glock for breach of implied warranty, negligence, wrongful death, and unfair practices. The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants, and the appeals court affirmed. The court held that Hughes owed no duty or that causation was lacking, and that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act barred the claims against Glock because the firearm was a qualified product shipped in interstate commerce and no statutory exception applied; it also noted Milot's violations of state firearms laws as relevant to the analysis.

gunscriminal lawtorts & liability

In Commonwealth v. Perez, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of carrying a firearm without a license. He appealed, arguing that the motion judge erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence from a vehicle stop, that admission of a ballistics certificate violated his confrontation rights, and that his conviction violated the Second Amendment. The court upheld the denial of the suppression motion, finding the stop supported by reasonable suspicion based on reports of gunshots and a matching vehicle description under the collective knowledge doctrine and Terry v. Ohio standards. It rejected the Second Amendment claim but held that the ballistics certificate's admission was prejudicial error requiring a new trial, as it was testimonial evidence under Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the lack of other proof on firearm operability.

gunscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Rupert Weeks, who was convicted by a jury of unlawful firearm possession without a license and, after waiving a jury, found guilty by a judge of the subsequent offense enhancement based on prior convictions. Weeks appealed, claiming that the admission of certified docket sheets to prove those prior convictions violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under Crawford v. Washington, especially in light of the Supreme Court's later decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts overturning the treatment of certain certificates as nontestimonial business records. The court analyzed whether the docket sheets qualified as testimonial hearsay created for use at trial or instead as public records made for administrative purposes and public accountability, concluding they fell into the latter category and thus did not implicate confrontation rights; the opinion also addressed additional claims regarding trial evidence and prosecutorial statements.

criminal lawproceduregunscivil rights