Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 459 Mass. 271

Background

Myrie and Lucia were renovating a Marlborough Street apartment when two masked gunmen entered; a third masked man shot Lewis and Thompson, killing them; Lucia survived.
Police traced defendant Caldwell through telephone communications and observed his movements, including time at Little's apartment and later at a casino with Charles Reed (Chuck) on December 12.
DNA analysis linked a reddish-brown stain on jeans to Lewis as a major contributor, with wear-area DNA including the defendant in a mixed profile; other items also recovered in dumpsters connected to the investigation.
Willie Sherrod, a drug associate of Caldwell, cooperated with federal authorities under a plea and cooperation agreement; he later disclosed information about Caldwell in recorded interactions.
Caldwell was arrested December 16, gave a tape-recorded and written statement; trial included evidence of a robbery motivated by ‘straight money’ rather than drugs.
Convictions in the Superior Court included two counts of first-degree murder on theories of deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony murder, plus related armed-robbery and weapons offenses.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether struck drug-dealing testimony prejudiced Caldwell	Caldwell claims the drug-dealing testimony unfairly prejudiced the jury.	Striking the testimony was insufficient to cure prejudice, the reference was inflammatory.	No reversible error; jurors were instructed to ignore the remark and guilt was overwhelmingly supported.
Whether prosecutor's closing argument improper regarding Sherrod's truthfulness	State may argue credibility based on plea-accord and breach consequences.	Prosecutor improperly vouched for credibility or knew truth outside the record.	Fair and proper; prosecutor did not vouch or imply outside knowledge; court properly cautioned about credibility.
Whether removal of spectators during sentencing violated public-trial rights	Partial closure violated Sixth Amendment by excluding some spectators.	Removal was improper without adequate findings and notice.	Not a constitutional violation; partial closure justified by safety threats; suggestions for improved future procedures.
Whether the denial of extra time to prepare closing argument violated due process	Defense counsel needed more time; denial prejudiced defense.	Prosecution rested earlier and defense had breaks to prepare; no prejudice shown.	No abuse of discretion; defense had adequate time and breaks; no demonstrated prejudice.
Whether the defendant's pro se arguments have merit	Tape evidence admissible; evidence supported joint-venture and other theories.	Errors in jury instructions and misapplication of law.	Frivolous; no reversible errors found; no basis for new trial or reduced conviction.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Vallejo, 455 Mass. 72 (2009) (jurors presumed to follow admonitions to disregard evidence)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 450 Mass. 645 (2008) (trial court instruction to disregard prejudicial testimony upheld)
Commonwealth v. Flebotte, 417 Mass. 348 (1994) (overwhelming evidence sustains verdict despite improper testimony)
Commonwealth v. Peruzzi, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 437 (1983) (prejudice assessment for struck testimony)
Commonwealth v. Ciampa, 406 Mass. 257 (1989) (prosecutor may discuss plea agreement; cannot vouch for witness)
Commonwealth v. Marrero, 436 Mass. 488 (2002) (remarks about credibility must be careful after plea agreements)
Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 1), 456 Mass. 94 (2010) (partial closure requires case-specific justification and findings)
Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010) (recognizes safety-based court closures may be permissible)
Cosentino v. Kelly, 102 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 1996) (limitations on partial closures and safety concerns)
Commonwealth v. Braley, 449 Mass. 316 (2007) (joint venture instructions and evidentiary standards)