Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Bresnahan

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided April 27, 2011No. 07-P-1927PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. McDonald v. PlessSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. Commonwealth v. FidlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
  3. Rakes v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1948
  4. Commonwealth v. SemedoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2010
  5. Commonwealth v. DixonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Commonwealth v. BresnahanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API