Opinion ID: 204071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-Verdict Appeals

Text: DeBurgo took a direct appeal from his conviction as well as an appeal from the trial judge's denial of his motion for a new trial. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed in all respects. Commonwealth v. DeBurgo, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 1118, 842 N.E.2d 993, 2006 WL 399575 (2006). The court only reviewed for clear error the trial judge's determination that DeBurgo received a fair trial and that the jury deliberations were not tainted by prejudice. Id. at  (It is for the trial judge, after conducting an individual voir dire of each juror, to assess the possible prejudicial effect and to weigh any impact of the extraneous information on the jurors.) (citing Commonwealth v. Kamara, 422 Mass. 614, 616, 664 N.E.2d 825 (1996)). As to MM's honesty during voir dire, the court determined that the facts found by the judge established that it was unclear if or when she knew of the defendant. Id. at , n. 2. Therefore, the court found no clear error in the judge's conclusion. As to the allegation of extraneous information, the court explained that under Massachusetts law the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the jury were in fact exposed to extrinsic information; the burden then shifts to the Commonwealth to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not prejudiced by the information. Id. at  (citing Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192, 201, 385 N.E.2d 513 (1979)). The court concluded that the trial judge was correct to conclude that the information regarding Lopes was extrinsic but not prejudicial, given that DeBurgo had raised the Lopes issue on cross examination and had sought without success to introduce at trial the same information that [MM] disseminated to her fellow jurors. Id. at . DeBurgo therefore could not claim that the information was `so inherently damaging to [his] case that prejudice must be inferred.' Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Hunt, 392 Mass. 28, 42, 465 N.E.2d 1195 (1984)). The court also briefly addressed DeBurgo's claim that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain the guilty verdict. While DeBurgo argued that the Commonwealth presented no witness who could testify that DeBurgo was seen with a gun or shot the victims, the court concluded that the circumstantial evidence of DeBurgo's guilt was sufficient to permit `a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of every essential element charged.' Id. at  (quoting Commonwealth v. Arroyo, 442 Mass. 135, 139-40, 810 N.E.2d 1201 (2004)). The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) declined DeBurgo's application for leave to obtain further appellate review. Thereafter, DeBurgo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court denied the petition as to both the fair trial issue and the sufficiency of the evidence issue but granted a certificate of appealability as to both.