Commonwealth v. Toolan, 460 Mass. 452

Background

Defendant Thomas E. Toolan III was convicted of first-degree murder and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in Nantucket County; conviction based on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty.
Victim, 44, lived on Nantucket; defendant traveled from New York, purchased two knives, and was associated with the victim prior to her murder on Oct 25, 2004.
Pretrial publicity on Nantucket and nationally portrayed the relationship and defendant's alcohol history; local papers and a true-crime book amplified notoriety before trial.
Venire members disclosed extensive connections to the victim, family, or witnesses; many had exposure to case-related media; judge did not systematically question on publicity.
Jury empanelment involved initial collective questioning followed by a second phase of individualized voir dire; six jurors from day one were not adequately questioned about publicity or exposure.
Court reversed the convictions on appeal due to flawed jury selection process, remanding for a new trial; separate discussion addressed Miranda rights and proposed future instructions on mental illness/intent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the change of venue and voir dire insufficient to ensure impartiality?	Presumptive prejudice warranted change of venue given extensive publicity and small community.	Judge failed to conduct thorough individual voir dire; venue denial allowed biased jury.	Convictions reversed; remand for new trial.
Did presumptive prejudice exist requiring venue change?	Massachusetts and federal standards support presumptive prejudice where publicity is extensive and community small.	No clear presumptive prejudice; persistent claims should be weighed by voir dire.	Presumptive prejudice not found; still remanded due to faulty voir dire and nonuniform questioning.
Was actual juror prejudice shown given publicity and Nantucket’s context?	Exposure to publicity and community attitudes undermined impartiality.	Jurors could remain impartial despite exposure.	Voir dire inadequate; risk of bias could not be excluded; reverse and remand.
Did trial statements about Miranda rights improperly affect the insanity defense?	Miranda-rights discussion could be argued as showing defendant’s deliberation and sanity.	References to rights were improper and could improperly influence guilt or insanity issues.	On remand, caution advised; may admit Miranda-related evidence but avoid using invocation of rights to show responsibility.
Were instructions on mental defect and intoxication proper in light of Berry/DiPadova?	Trial court should apply governing standard for intersection of intoxication and mental disease.	Defendant’s awareness of alcohol effects could affect instruction.	Remand for consideration of Berry/DiPadova guidance in retrial.

Key Cases Cited

Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (pretrial publicity and voir dire adequacy in high-profile cases)
Morales, 440 Mass. 536 (2003) (extensive publicity factors and impartial juror selection)
Leahy, 445 Mass. 481 (2005) (importance of assessing juror impartiality amid publicity)
McCowen, 458 Mass. 461 (2010) (highly cautious approach to change of venue with pretrial publicity)
Clark, 432 Mass. 1 (2000) (denial of venue change proper where jurors individually impartial)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (presumptive prejudice when publicity taints entire jury pool)
Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963) (extreme publicity influencing the trial itself)
Crehan, 345 Mass. 609 (1963) (jurors presumed to have read publicity absent contrary proof)
Parker, 412 Mass. 353 (1992) (Miranda rights evidence during trials subject to humane practice)
DiPadova, ante 424 (2011) (interaction of intoxication and mental disease in jury instructions)
Berry, 457 Mass. 602 (2010) (instructions when there is mental disease/defect and voluntary intoxication)