postverdict inquiry in Massachusetts

2025"We [also] summarize the trial evidence only to the extent relevant to the postverdict inquiry." Commonwealth v. Kincaid, 444 Mass. 381, 382 (2005).[4] 1.

2014See Commonwealth v. Kincaid, 444 Mass. 381, 386 (2005). 7 “A trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether a postverdict inquiry of a juror is warranted and is under no duty to conduct such an inquiry unless the defendant makes a ‘colorable showing’ that extraneous matters may have affected a juror’s impartiality.” Commonwealth v. Guisti, supra at 251 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Dixon, supra at 152 . “[T]here must be something more than mere speculation,” and here, the defendant has not provided any more.

2025Being fair and impartial requires that you can, and you will, put aside any experiences or anything you may have read, or heard, or thought about [the] relevant subject matter and that you will decide the facts of this case based solely on the evidence that will be presented in the trial of this case." [7] On appeal, the defendants do not directly challenge juror no. 15's failure to disclose her own prior experience with the law. [8] In Fidler, 377 Mass. at 201-204 , this court established the procedure by which a judge may conduct a postverdict inquiry into a juror's exposure to extraneous ma

2014Generally, a postverdict inquiry of a juror may be conducted only if the court finds that extraneous matters became part of the jury’s deliberations, Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192, 193 (1979), or where a reasonable basis of racial or ethnic prejudice, see Commonwealth v. Laguer, 410 Mass. 89, 97 (1991), or some other personal bias is raised, see Commonwealth v. Guisti , 434 Mass, at 253.

2014See Commonwealth v. Kincaid, 444 Mass. 381, 386 (2005). 7 “A trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether a postverdict inquiry of a juror is warranted and is under no duty to conduct such an inquiry unless the defendant makes a ‘colorable showing’ that extraneous matters may have affected a juror’s impartiality.” Commonwealth v. Guisti, supra at 251 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Dixon, supra at 152 . “[T]here must be something more than mere speculation,” and here, the defendant has not provided any more.

2014“Where a case is close, ... a judge should exercise discretion in favor of conducting a judicial inquiry.” Ibid., quoting from Commonwealth v. Dixon, 395 Mass. 149, 153 (1985).

2014Generally, a postverdict inquiry of a juror may be conducted only if the court finds that extraneous matters became part of the jury’s deliberations, Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192, 193 (1979), or where a reasonable basis of racial or ethnic prejudice, see Commonwealth v. Laguer, 410 Mass. 89, 97 (1991), or some other personal bias is raised, see Commonwealth v. Guisti , 434 Mass, at 253.

2001See Commonwealth v. Laguer, 410 Mass. 89, 97 (1991); Commonwealth v. Amirault, 399 Mass. 617, 625 (1987); Commonwealth v. Grant, 391 Mass. 645, 653 (1984).

2021See Commonwealth v. Tavares, 385 Mass. 140 , 155 n.24, cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982) ("The questioning of jurors prior to the verdict is no different from a postverdict inquiry and is governed by the same principles, including judicial supervision"). [Note 12] If a report is made, the judge may ask what statements were made, and if statements denoting racial or ethnic bias were made.

2005“There is no reason to give a judge’s finding of fact less weight in a postverdict context than we ordinarily would, i.e., we accept his finding unless clearly erroneous.” Commonwealth v. Ciminera, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 101, 109 , S.C., 384 Mass. 807 (1981). “[A] finding of fact by the trial judge will not be deemed ‘clearly erroneous’ unless the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Commonwealth v. Tavares, 385 Mass. 140, 156 , cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982), quoting New England Canteen Serv., Inc. v. Ashley, 372 Mass. 671,

2021See Commonwealth v. Tavares, 385 Mass. 140 , 155 n.24, cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982) ("The questioning of jurors prior to the verdict is no different from a postverdict inquiry and is governed by the same principles, including judicial supervision"). [Note 12] If a report is made, the judge may ask what statements were made, and if statements denoting racial or ethnic bias were made.

2005“There is no reason to give a judge’s finding of fact less weight in a postverdict context than we ordinarily would, i.e., we accept his finding unless clearly erroneous.” Commonwealth v. Ciminera, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 101, 109 , S.C., 384 Mass. 807 (1981). “[A] finding of fact by the trial judge will not be deemed ‘clearly erroneous’ unless the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Commonwealth v. Tavares, 385 Mass. 140, 156 , cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982), quoting New England Canteen Serv., Inc. v. Ashley, 372 Mass. 671,

2016See id.

2016The postverdict test, on the other hand, requires that the defendant establish “by a preponderance of the evidence that the Commonwealth would not have prevailed had the issue been raised at trial,” Chatman, 466 Mass. at 336 , meaning that the defendant bears the burden of establishing that, had the issue been raised before or during trial, the Commonwealth could not have proved either the first or the second prong of the competency test.

2014See Commonwealth v. Kincaid, 444 Mass. 381, 386 (2005). 7 “A trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether a postverdict inquiry of a juror is warranted and is under no duty to conduct such an inquiry unless the defendant makes a ‘colorable showing’ that extraneous matters may have affected a juror’s impartiality.” Commonwealth v. Guisti, supra at 251 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Dixon, supra at 152 . “[T]here must be something more than mere speculation,” and here, the defendant has not provided any more.

2014Cf. Commonwealth v. Zinser, 446 Mass. 807, 811-812 (2006). 7 If the defendant meets the burden of showing that the extraneous matter came to the jury’s attention, “the burden then shifts to the Commonwealth to show beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] was not prejudiced by the extraneous matter.” Commonwealth v. Fidler, supra at 201 . 8 In assessing the relationship between juror and witness, while the court could no doubt properly consider that Shapiro stated that he did not recognize the juror, that fact would not be dispositive of the juror’s possible familiarity with Shapiro. 9 T

2012It’s a serious situation.” The defendant’s reliance on cases such as Commonwealth v. Kincaid, 444 Mass. 381, 392 (2005), and Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192, 200-201 (1979), is misplaced, as those cases “involve a postverdict inquiry into a jury’s exposure to extraneous information during the jury deliberation process.” Commonwealth v. Womack, 457 Mass. 268, 280 (2010).

2012See Commonwealth v. Bresnahan, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 353, 364 (2011).

2010His reliance on cases such as Commonwealth v. Kincaid, 444 Mass. 381, 392 (2005); Commonwealth v. Casey (No. 1), 442 Mass. 1, 5-6 (2004); and Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192, 200-201 (1979), is misplaced because they involve a postverdict inquiry into a jury’s exposure to extraneous information during the jury deliberation process.

2005“There is no reason to give a judge’s finding of fact less weight in a postverdict context than we ordinarily would, i.e., we accept his finding unless clearly erroneous.” Commonwealth v. Ciminera, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 101, 109 , S.C., 384 Mass. 807 (1981). “[A] finding of fact by the trial judge will not be deemed ‘clearly erroneous’ unless the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Commonwealth v. Tavares, 385 Mass. 140, 156 , cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982), quoting New England Canteen Serv., Inc. v. Ashley, 372 Mass. 671,

2001See Com monwealth v. Amirault, supra (postverdict hearing required if defendant raises “reasonable claim” of juror bias).

2001See Commonwealth v. Laguer, 410 Mass. 89, 97 (1991); Commonwealth v. Amirault, 399 Mass. 617, 625 (1987); Commonwealth v. Grant, 391 Mass. 645, 653 (1984).

2001See Commonwealth v. Laguer, 410 Mass. 89, 97 (1991); Commonwealth v. Amirault, 399 Mass. 617, 625 (1987); Commonwealth v. Grant, 391 Mass. 645, 653 (1984).