971 N.E.2d 218
Mass.2012Background
- Bresnahan moved for postverdict juror inquiry after a district-court trial for DUI; judge recused and a new judge granted the motion; evidentiary hearings led to a new-trial grant based on possible extraneous jury influence and lack of proof of no prejudice; Appeals Court vacated and remanded to explore defendant’s and Constantine’s role under Fidler principles; this Court grants further appellate review to clarify procedures for postverdict inquiries when Fidler issues may be involved.
- During trial, two officers testified to intoxication; defendant claimed Lyme disease and shingles affected sobriety testing; jury deliberated starting at 4:20 p.m. and returned a guilty verdict at 5:55 p.m.; sentence was 2.5 years in a house of correction.
- Barbara Constantine contacted appellate counsel claiming a juror (Juror A) was upset and later provided Juror A’s number; Juror A reported that the trial judge had entered the jury room during deliberations and made statements influencing verdict.
- A second judge allowed the juror inquiry based on Juror A’s statements; multiple evidentiary hearings revealed disputed testimony about the judge’s in-room involvement and the jurors’ takeaway from any ex parte remarks; the Commonwealth argued against excluding evidence obtained via Fidler violations.
- The motion judge ultimately granted a new trial, but the appellate court questioned whether improper postverdict contact by Constantine or defense counsel tainted the inquiry; the Court here remands for further inquiry to balance extraneous influence against any Fidler violation.
- There is no evidence the defendant took a breath test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the postverdict inquiry was appropriate given potential Fidler violations | Bresnahan argues credible extraneous influence; Constantine’s conduct may have tainted juror A | Commonwealth contends no exclusionary rule should apply; balance test required | Remand for balancing and further inquiry; not outright exclusionary rule |
| Whether a Fidler violation by defendant or agent bars inquiry | Fidler violation by defendant or agent present; requires inquiry | No automatic exclusion; weigh credibility and conduct | Balance needed; no automatic bar to inquiry |
| Proper procedure when Fidler violations coexist with extraneous influences | Judge should conduct meaningful inquiry first, then balancing | Two-step procedure per Fidler should be followed | Remand to apply balancing after meaningful inquiry, not mechanically apply Fidler steps |
| Whether the trial judge’s in-jury-room remarks prejudiced the defense | Remarks potentially misled jurors about verdict expectations | No clear record of exact statements; credibility margins exist | Commonwealth burden to show lack of prejudice; remand to complete record and balancing |
| Whether the case should be remanded to the same judge for further proceedings | Judge’s prior decisions show careful fact-finding | Bias concerns minimal; same judge preferred | Remand to the same motion judge for continued inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (Mass. 1979) (postverdict juror inquiry balancing extraneous influence and Fidler violations; no automatic exclusionary rule)
- Commonwealth v. Solis, 407 Mass. 398 (Mass. 1990) (rejects automatic exclusion for juror contact; supports balanced inquiry when Fidler issue arises)
- Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 364 Mass. 87 (Mass. 1973) (Tuey-Rodriquez charge; guidance on verdict pressure instructions)
- Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1966) (bailiff’s statements to jurors; new trial when due process concerns arise)
- United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1978) (judge’s ex parte communication with jurors; impact on verdict)