Commonwealth v. Maldonado
466 Mass. 742
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Defendant ("Braveheart"), a Charlestown Bloods member, was convicted of first‑degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm for the fatal shooting of Mark Parilla after a gang‑related altercation.
- Multiple eyewitnesses placed the defendant at the scene, chased the victim, and fired shots; victim sustained fatal gunshot wounds.
- Trial incidents: judge ordered courtroom spectators to sign in and show identification; a juror expressed concern that juror address information might be accessible.
- A key witness (Bosquet) gave grand jury testimony implicating the defendant but largely disavowed or claimed lack of memory at trial; the judge admitted his grand jury testimony as substantive evidence.
- Another witness (Castellón) admitted she lied to the grand jury that she saw the shooting and testified that Rivera told her (via the Internet) he saw the defendant shoot the victim; judge gave a limiting instruction that this was not admitted for its truth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requiring spectators to sign in and show ID closed the courtroom in violation of Sixth Amendment public‑trial right | Prosecutor/judge: identification justified by articulable risk of witness intimidation and courtroom disruption in gang case | Defendant: sign‑in/ID requirement amounted to a (partial) closure infringing public‑trial right | Court held this was not a constitutional closure but required on‑record findings; identification permissible here given special circumstances but should be narrowly tailored and justified on record |
| Admission of Bosquet’s grand jury testimony under Daye | Prosecution: Bosquet’s trial testimony was evasive/feigned memory; grand jury testimony admissible substantively | Defendant: judge erred by admitting it without voir dire and because grand jury testimony was coerced | Court held voir dire not required where trial testimony supplies needed facts; evidence supported finding statements were voluntary and Daye requirements satisfied |
| Admission of hearsay via Castellón (Rivera allegedly told her he saw the shooting) | Prosecution: Castellón’s perjury and her explanation (Rivera told her) relevant to impeach her and explain why she lied; limiting instruction given | Defendant: prosecution called Castellón primarily to introduce Rivera’s inadmissible hearsay and thereby risk miscarriage of justice | Court doubted propriety but found limiting instruction given and evidence against defendant overwhelming; no substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice |
| Whether judge should have voir dired all jurors after one juror expressed concern about disclosure of juror addresses | Defense (post‑verdict): exposure of juror questionnaire information was extraneous prejudicial information requiring inquiry of entire jury | Prosecution/judge: juror’s concern was personal safety/fear alleviated by judge’s explanation; no extraneous factual information was transmitted | Court held no error: juror’s concern was not extraneous information and judge reasonably questioned the juror only; broad discretion and no substantial risk of prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (constitutional standard for courtroom closure)
- Commonwealth v. Daye, 393 Mass. 55 (admissibility of grand jury testimony as substantive evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Cohen, 456 Mass. 94 (presumption of openness and partial/full closure analysis)
- United States v. DeLuca, 137 F.3d 24 (First Circuit upholding identification/screening as a partial‑closure measure justified by security)
- Williams v. State, 690 N.E.2d 162 (Indiana Supreme Court: sign‑in/ID not a constitutional closure but requires on‑record findings)
- People v. Jones, 96 N.Y.2d 213 (New York Court of Appeals treating spectator‑questioning as implicating full‑closure concerns)
- Commonwealth v. Sineiro, 432 Mass. 735 (Daye requirements apply where witness feigns memory)
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 430 Mass. 483 (limits on calling witnesses solely to introduce hearsay/impeach)
- Commonwealth v. Francis, 432 Mass. 353 (when extraneous material requires voir dire of jurors)