Commonwealth v. Bresnahan
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtGrasso, J.
The convoluted proceedings that underlie this appeal exemplify the pitfalls of engaging in a postverdict inquiry of jurors without first carefully applying the principles set forth in Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979), and its progeny. Because the motion judge engaged in a postverdict examination of jurors prematurely and without affording the Commonwealth the opportunity to explore whether the defendant’s claim of an extraneous jury influence was orchestrated by a surrogate acting on behalf of the defendant, we vacate the order *354allowing the defendant’s motion for a new trial and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McDonald v. PlessSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Commonwealth v. FidlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Rakes v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1948
- Commonwealth v. SemedoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2010
- Commonwealth v. DixonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. BresnahanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2012