SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

endeavor and the conclusions he reached were flawed. The
tainting of even a single juror is sufficient to
invalidate a verdict. Parker v, Gladden, 385 U.S. 363,
366 (1966) (E curiam) ; Commonwealth v. Hunt, 392 Mass.
28, 40 (1984). Here, there was no evidence about the
impact of the banana experiment on eight of the 12
deliberating jurors.2o Absent blind speculation, the
court could not properly conclude that any or all of
those eight jurors was actually unaffected.
Among the jurors who did testify, there is ample
evidence that it had an effect. Juror Salvi stated that
the jurors “marveled” at the similarity between the
bruise on the banana and the streak on the jacket. D.
(2/24/06)/33. Juror vitzthum confirmed that all of the
jurors saw the bruise on the banana and compared it to
the jacket, that the bruise on the banana looked like the
streak on the jacket, and that they discussed the bruise.
E. (3/3/06)/10-16. Juror Barbera testified to the same
effect, adding that there was discussion of the
comparison among the jurors. a. at 21-22. During his
recorded interview, conducted far closer to the time of
trial than the evidentiary hearing, Juror Gieaiecke
stated that the banana experiment was “one of those
’’ Those eight jurors included the six jurors who did not
testify and jurors Smith and Miller, who did not recall the banana
experiment and gave no testimony regarding its e€Eect.
42