Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court tackled this thorny issue in its decision in Commonwealth v. Vasquez. The defendant in the case, Pedro Vasquez, was charged with murder in connection with a shooting in Springfield. After the first day of jury deliberations, two jurors were observed having a heated argument. The next day one of the two jurors sent the judge a note, saying that other juror had called him “racist” and initiated an argument. The jury foreperson (not one of the jurors observed arguing) independently also wrote a note to the judge stating that interactions with one member of the jury had “become personal,” and that the juror in question had voiced “preconceived biases” to the group.
The judge proceeded to question the two jurors involved in the argument. The first juror confirmed that he had called the second racist based on multiple statements in deliberations, and that he had invited him to “fight it out” after the second juror had called him a “piece of shit.” The second juror confirmed that there had been an argument based on their deliberations and that the first juror wanted to fight. The foreperson, who was also questioned, mentioned uncomfortable tensions in the room; the judge did not ask her about the “preconceived biases” she had referred to. All three jurors questioned stated that they could remain impartial. The prosecutor asked for the two jurors in conflict to be dismissed from the case, while the defense lawyer suggested that this would be “extremely premature.” The judge kept both jurors and reinstructed the whole jury about deliberations and the importance of impartiality. Later that day the jury convicted Vasquez of second-degree murder.
In another recent case, Commonwealth v. Ralph R., the SJC overturned a conviction after a judge took no action when the foreperson reported that there had been “discriminating comments” during deliberations. The SJC held that, when faced with such a report, a judge must decide whether the report is credible and, when it is, conduct a “preliminary inquiry” into whether the report is true. In Vasquez, Chief Justice Budd went further in articulating what the necessary inquiry would involve in this particular case. The judge, she wrote, should have done three things. First, despite the secrecy of jury deliberations, the judge had to inquire of the foreperson about the content of the statements at issue to determine whether they were actually racially biased. Second, if the statements turned out to be biased, the judge should have questioned the juror who made them to determine if the juror was actually biased and unable to be impartial. Finally, regardless of whether the juror who made the statements turned out to be biased, the judge should have individually asked all of the jurors whether they had heard the statements in question and, if they did, whether they were still able to be fair and impartial.
Because Vasquez’s lawyer did not object at the time to the judge’s inadequate way of proceeding, the SJC applied a relatively unforgiving standard of review, asking whether the failure to inquire adequately created “a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.” The Court held that even given the high standard and strong evidence against Vasquez, the verdict still had to be overturned. “Simply put,” the Chief Justice wrote, “the circumstances here . . . establish too great a risk to bear that a juror was racially biased against the defendant and openly shared such views with his fellow jurors while deliberating on the defendant’s guilt or innocence.” The SJC vacated the conviction and remanded the case to the Superior Court for a new trial.
Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury. In previous cases the SJC has emphasized that jury deliberations tainted by racial or ethnic bias should be of heightened concern to the fair administration of justice. In Vasquez, the SJC demonstrated its ongoing concern about the impact of racial bias in jury deliberations and the need for judges and attorneys to be vigilant in protecting against such bias. The decision lays out concrete guidance for how judges should proceed when the possibility of bias rears its head—and reminds lawyers of their crucial role in ensuring that the law is followed in this area.
If you are facing criminal charges, or know someone who is, fill out our online intake form or call us at (617) 742-6020 to be connected with one of our criminal defense lawyers.