967 N.E.2d 159
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Clare Werner was convicted of twelve counts of larceny in excess of $250 under G. L. c. 266, § 30(1).
- Defense counsel reviewed jurors’ public Facebook postings and responses during/after trial to assess potential extraneous influences.
- Defendant moved for a new trial and sought Facebook records; the court issued a subpoena and held an evidentiary hearing.
- Judge heard testimony from Jurors A and B; judge found no extraneous influence and denied the new-trial motion.
- Court addressed whether the criminal trial could be affected by juror social media use and discussed improvements to juror instructions; decision affirmed.
- Post-judgment notes indicate Juror A’s and Juror B’s Facebook activity, the trial’s context, and the court’s consideration of broader social media guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extraneous influence from juror Facebook postings? | Commonwealth contends there was a colorable showing of extraneous influence. | Werner argues the trial judge should have pursued further inquiry, possibly relying on Facebook records. | No reversible error; no abuse of discretion; no extraneous influence found. |
| Was denial of postverdict discovery/awaiting Facebook response proper? | Commonwealth asserts discretion allowed comprehensive inquiry; records unnecessary. | Werner contends discovery should have been allowed before ruling. | Within discretion to deny postverdict discovery. |
| Did Miranda-related instruction affect voluntariness analysis? | Commonwealth argues no prejudice; voluntariness preserved. | Werner contends instruction could mislead about voluntariness and Miranda. | Instruction proper; preserved voluntariness issue and did not prejudice. |
| Should juror-use of social media prompt new standards or jury instructions? | Commonwealth emphasizes need for clearer guidance. | Werner argues for stricter controls. | Court suggests explicit, broader instructions and training; not necessary to overturn here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979) (extraneous matter standard for juror communications)
- Guisti I, 434 Mass. 245 (2001) (remedial inquiry when colorable extraneous influence shown)
- Guisti II, 449 Mass. 1018 (2007) (postremand inquiry; discretionary scope of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Dixon, 395 Mass. 149 (1985) (postverdict inquiry allowed when colorable showing)
- Commonwealth v. Kincaid, 444 Mass. 381 (2005) (burden shifts to show lack of prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Pillai, 445 Mass. 175 (2005) (special deference to trial judge findings)
- Commonwealth v. Hunt, 392 Mass. 28 (1984) (time of deliberation and evidentiary considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Nadworny, 396 Mass. 342 (1985) (Miranda-related testimony in noncustodial setting)
- Commonwealth v. Chung, 378 Mass. 451 (1979) (custody and Miranda relevance to voluntariness)