462 Mass. 1 Appellant Ray Brief - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

-5- of the Commonwealth. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969). Thames v. Commonwealth, 365 Mass. 477 (1974). General Laws c.263 §§7, 8, 8A (2011 ed.) B. There was no "manifest necessity" for the mistrial because the judge failed to ascertain if there was a reasonable probability of a unanimous verdict prior to declaring a mistrial. "When a mistrial is declared over the defendant's objection, the general rule is that retrial is barred. An exception to the general rule exists for cases in which the mistrial was justified by manifest necessity." Commonwealth v. Andrews, 403 Mass. 441, 447 (1988), quoting Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 683 (1982). There was no "manifest necessity" to declare a mistrial because the judge failed to explore other alternatives. See Commonwealth v. Steward, 396 Mass. 76, 79 (1985) Specifically, the judge declined to give the Tuey- Rodriguez instruction, as both counsel requested. The third note from the jury was the first indication that the jury was experiencing any difficulty arriving at a verdict. The Tuey-Rodriguez instruction is designed to assist the jury in this particular situation and the judge should have given the jury the benefit of this instruction prior to declaring the jury deadlocked.
-6- See Commonwealth v. Haley, 413 Mass. 770, 779 (1992) ("The purpose of the charge is to instruct the jury concerning their decision making process in the event it appears the jury may be deadlocked"). Although the jury had previously submitted two notes, these notes contained questions about the evidence and the law applicable to the case. Despite the judge's finding that "[i]n light of all of the communications from the jury and all of the other circumstances ... a Tuey-Rodriguez charge would entail a serious risk of jury coercion," neither of the two previous notes indicated that the jury was experiencing any difficulty with the deliberation process (R. 19). The judge's concern for coercion is simply not supported by the record. Not only did the judge not provide the jury with the Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, the judge also failed to take any other measures to ensure that the jury was truly deadlocked before aborting the trial over the defendant's objection. The judge did not conduct any inquiry with the jury to determine whether any further instructions or deliberations would be likely to resolve the deadlock. Contrast United States v.
Page 1 and 2: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPRE
Page 3 and 4: -ii- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases A J
Page 5: -iv- Statutes G.L. c.211, §3. . .
Page 9: Commonwealth (R. 33-34). -4- ARGUME
Page 13: -8- "high degree" of necessity requ
Page 19 and 20: -14- single prosecutionn required t

462 Mass. 1 Appellant Ray Brief - Mass Cases

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?