In a striking courtroom turn in Boston, Massachusetts, a judge was faced with a request from a defense team to dismiss two out of three charges after a mistrial was declared due to a deadlocked jury. The jurors were unable to reach unanimous decisions after several days of deliberation, which led to declarations of their sharply divided views on the evidence presented.
In the aftermath of the mistrial, the defense lawyers brought forth allegations based on communications with four jurors, claiming that an unofficial consensus had been reached to acquit the defendant on murder and leaving the scene. However, a divide remained regarding a manslaughter charge, with the reported tally being four against and eight for conviction. The lawyer representing the defendant, Alan Jackson, suggested that the jurors misunderstood their directive, believing a unanimous decision across all charges was essential before any individual count verdicts could be reported.
The judge, Beverly J. Cannone, has not yet made a decision regarding the motion to dismiss the charges, and the prosecution has not responded in court filings. This incident has sparked widespread legal discussion around the practices of managing a hung jury and the acceptance of partial verdicts under Massachusetts law.
Experts in criminal procedure have different takes on the situation. Rule 27 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure allows, with a judge’s consent, for jurors to return verdicts on counts they are unanimous on before continuing deliberations on other charges. However, it is within the discretion of the judge to decide whether to require the jury to clarify which counts, if any, they have reached a verdict on before declaring a mistrial.
Several experienced lawyers and professors, including Jack Lu, a retired Superior Court judge now teaching at Boston College Law School, argue that a judge might avoid asking jurors to disclose their decisions on specific counts to maintain neutrality. Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge and Harvard Law School teacher, reinforced that judges are not obligated to inquire about partial verdicts.
Moreover, there was no request from either defense attorneys or prosecutors for Judge Cannonne to poll the jurors about their individual stances on each count before the mistrial was declared, which experts say would have been permissible.
The complications do not end here for the case. Holding a hearing to delve into jury deliberations poses numerous challenges, as brought forward by defense motions. Questions arise about the appropriateness and legality of probing jurors post-verdict. Revisiting jury deliberations is often avoided as it can be seen as an intrusion into the privacy and independence of the jury’s decision-making process.
However, scenarios do exist where hearings have been called when compelling evidence suggests that external factors impaired the fairness of jury deliberations. Daniel F. Conley, a former district attorney and now a private practice lawyer, emphasized that any assertions made by jurors outside the courtroom do not constitute official verdicts until read in open court, dismissing the idea of informal or preliminary agreements.
As for the prospects of a judicial probe into this matter, Gerard T. Leone, another legal expert in Boston, mentioned that such measures are typically reserved for instances where a clear indication of jury tampering or similar serious irregularities are evident.
As the legal community watches closely, the unfolding developments in this case may prompt further scrutiny and possibly adjustments in how partial and deadlocked jury verdicts are handled in complex criminal trials in Massachusetts. The outcome not only impacts the immediate parties involved but also sets precedents for future jurisprudence in similar scenarios.