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

Heading: The Post-Trial Hearing

Text: After a three-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilt on all counts. Four days after the verdict was rendered, the trial judge received word from the District Attorney's office that a juror LChad contacted the DA with a concern that someone on the jury had a conflict of interest. LC had informed the DA that this concern was sparked when a fellow jurorMMtold her after the verdict that she either knew Mr. DeBurgo or his girlfriend ... and that she couldn't stand him. [3] After the verdict was rendered, the trial judge also received a second report of potential juror bias, this one from a court officer. The officer had been assigned to escort several jurors out to their cars after the verdict was read. The officer stated in a written memorandum that: The same female juror then stated that she knew someone that she had some dealings with at work, who was in some way related to Mr. DeBurgo or a similar statement. This juror further voiced some concern that she did not want any of the family of DeBurgo or his relatives to watch them get in their cars or take down any license plate numbers. According to the trial judge, the juror who was the subject of the officer's report matched the description of juror MM, who was the subject of LC's report. The trial judge promptly convened a post-trial hearing spanning three days in November 2003. During the hearing, the judge interviewed all twelve jurors about the allegation of bias. Juror LC, the original complainant, testified that after the verdict was announced and the jury had retired to the jury room, she became upset and started to cry. In response, according to LC, juror MM asked to speak with her in the restroom, where MM told LC that she knew of the defendant, Mr. DeBurgo, and that she couldn't stand him and she was glad that he was off the street. Juror LC further testified that MM said that DeBurgo was ... nothing but an f'ing piece of shit, was not a nice person, and didn't belong on the street. Juror MM also reportedly told LC that she thought she had gone to highschool with DeBurgo's girlfriend, who had attended the trial. Upon questioning from the trial judge, LC clarified that she couldn't remember whether MM had told her that she knew DeBurgo personally or just knew of him. In addition, LC testified that MM told her that she was aware of a Manuel Junior Lopes, who got arrested for gun possession, firearm possession, which was also a Glock nine millimeter, chrome, like what was used in the case we deliberated on. Juror LC testified that MM insinuated that she thought the gun involved in the Lopes case might have been the same gun involved in DeBurgo's case. The court interviewed a second juror, KM, who corroborated LC's story. According to KM, she and LC spoke on the telephone the weekend after the verdict was rendered and LC relayed the same information to KM about the conversation in the bathroom. [4] During the post-trial hearing the court also interviewed MM. Before doing so, the trial judge gave MM a transcript of LC's testimony and offered MM the opportunity to consult with an attorney given that, as the judge stated, the matter really br[ought] up some serious questions and involved a serious accusation. [5] MM declined the judge's offer of legal consultation. During her testimony, MM essentially denied all of LC's charges. She denied knowing DeBurgo before trial, denied telling LC that she knew or disliked DeBurgo, denied knowing a Manuel Junior Lopes or telling anyone that she did, and said her comments in the bathroom about DeBurgo being a bad person were merely meant to comfort LC about the guilty verdict. MM also testified that she thought she recognized DeBurgo's girlfriend, but wasn't sure why she looked familiar. Finally, MM denied saying anything to the court officer about knowing the defendant or knowing anyone who was an acquaintance of his. The court then interviewed the remaining nine jurors. None of them recalled MM saying at any point that she knew DeBurgo. [6] However, seven of the nine remembered that MM said she recognized or may have known DeBurgo's girlfriend, perhaps because MM attended highschool with her. The jurors were split as to whether MM had shared this information before, during, or after deliberations, but no juror indicated that MM had made negative comments about the girlfriend. In addition to juror LC, two other jurors recalled that MM had said something regarding either Manuel Junior Lopes or a gun used in an incident involving Manuel Lopes. One of these two jurors, TO, remembered that MM said during deliberations that she knew of Lopes, but didn't know him personally, and that she may have known of him based on news coverage of Lopes' arrest. The other juror, RT, remembered that MM told the jurors during deliberations that she knew someone who had recovered a gun that may have been involved in the DeBurgo case or at least may have been a similar type of gun. RT testified that the other jurors listened to what she said or whatever and took it for what it was worth.... We really didn't talk about it long, like maybe a minute or something.... It was like said and done kind of thing. After interviewing all the jurors, the trial judge issued a memorandum of decision which considered two forms of potential juror misconduct by MM(1) a false response during voir dire to the question of whether she knew the defendant and (2) the introduction of extraneous evidence about Manuel Lopes into the deliberative process. As to the first issue, the judge concluded that there was inadequate evidence to support the conclusion that MM responded untruthfully during voir dire of the venire as to her familiarity with DeBurgo. The judge concluded that MM's knowledge of DeBurgo's girlfriend was both tenuous and marginal and he deemed it unremarkable that two individuals from New Bedford of approximately the same age shared the same high school. Further, as to MM's knowledge of DeBurgo, the judge identified three pieces of evidence that suggested MM may have had some personal connection with DeBurgo: (a) LC's testimony about the bathroom conversation; (b) MM's testimony of LC's phone call; and (c) the court officer's report of his conversation with MM. The judge deemed the speculative quality of these reports to be insufficient for a finding that MM necessarily lied during voir dire. The judge suggested an alternative explanation for MM's alleged comments to LC that DeBurgo was a bad person who should be off the streets: [T]hose statements must be viewed with an awareness that the trial revealed an unprovoked shooting resulting in two wounded young men. That evidentiary basis may have served as the foundation for [MM]'s misguided efforts to comfort [LC]. As to the second issue, the judge concluded that though MM's comments to the jury about her knowledge of Lopes and the recovery of his gun constituted extraneous evidence, the information was not prejudicial because it was favorable to DeBurgo's defense. Indeed, the judge emphasized that DeBurgo sought admission of similar evidence and raised the issue of Lopes on cross-examination. Therefore, the trial judge concluded that DeBurgo had failed to make a proper showing that MM's actions violated his right to a fair trial. [7]