Cruz v. Commonwealth
461 Mass. 664
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Defendant Juan Cruz was indicted for cocaine trafficking under G. L. c. 94C, § 32E.
- During trial, Commonwealth failed to copy at least 500 pages of computer-generated materials, violating a discovery order.
- Judge denied dismissal, finding no intentional violation and that the new materials were of interest to defense and would require time beyond a brief delay.
- A mistrial was declared over defendant’s objection after finding continuance inadequate to address the undisclosed materials.
- Prior to retrial, defendant moved to dismiss under double jeopardy; motion denied and petition filed under G. L. c. 211, § 3.
- Court holds the mistrial was manifestly necessary and no double jeopardy bar exists; case remanded for judgment denying petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was manifest necessity for a mistrial | Commonwealth; violation justified mistrial given volume of materials | Defendant; proceeding with trial viable with waivers | Yes, manifest necessity supported; retrial permitted |
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial | Public interest favored continuing prosecution after mistrial | Mistrial should bar retrial due to violation | No; no double jeopardy bar; retrial permitted |
| Whether proceeding with trial without the undisclosed materials was viable | Trial could proceed with safeguards | Waiver could cure prejudice | Not viable; public interest outweighed defendant’s waiver argument |
| Whether the judge properly considered alternatives (continuance/dismissal) | Continuance or dismissal appropriate depending on facts | Judge should attempt continuance | Yes; judge carefully weighed alternatives and chose mistrial as manifestly necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (balancing test for manifest necessity; public interests)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (waiver and double jeopardy considerations in mistrial)
- Commonwealth v. Nicoll, 452 Mass. 816 (Mass. 2008) (recognizes limits on waivers and need to consider alternatives)
- United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579 (U.S. Supreme Court 1824) (manifest necessity for mistrial standard; double jeopardy constraint)
- Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 (U.S. Supreme Court 1949) (public interest in fair trials vs. defendant’s rights)
- Commonwealth v. Cronk, 396 Mass. 194 (Mass. 1985) (prosecutorial misconduct as drastic remedy; threshold for mistrial)
- Commonwealth v. Sholes, 13 Allen 554 (Mass. 1866) (early double jeopardy and mistrial principles)