An All Too Troubling, and Too Common, Occurrence

In Commonwealth v. Lopez (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court No.12-525, March 3, 2020), the defendant, Jean Carlos Lopez, was convicted--by a jury--of murder in the first degree, having committed murder by extreme atrocity or cruelty.

The facts of the case are troubling though a detailed description of the facts is not necessary to this discussion.

At the trial, after the Commonwealth finished presenting its evidence, the defendant asked the judge to find him not guilty, contending that the Commonwealth’s evidence was incapable of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed murder (the jury thus incapable of finding him guilty). The judge denied the defendant’s request and proceeded to instruct the jury on the law that applied to the case, including what was necessary to prove murder and that the defendant was to be found guilty only if the jury, unanimously, were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed murder.

On appeal the defendant renewed his claim that the evidence was incapable of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The Supreme Judicial Court noted that its function was to “determine whether that evidence [was] sufficient to satisfy a rational trier of fact that [the defendant committed] the crime charged . . . beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In reviewing the evidence against the defendant, the court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to place the defendant at the scene of the murder, the jury perhaps persuaded by evidence of the defendant’s motive to harm the victim and his association with persons who were at the scene of the murder.

The trouble with this case is that the jury were instructed on what was required to establish murder and that before finding the defendant guilty of murder the jury must conclude, unanimously, not just that evidence of murder was presented but that the evidence of murder was convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite the fact that the evidence was insufficient to prove murder, the jury found both that evidence sufficient to prove murder was presented and that that evidence was convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is not an uncommon occurrence for a Massachusetts appeals court to conclude that a jury convicted a defendant when the evidence was insufficient--in each case the jury incorrectly evaluating the facts and|or applying the law. Recent cases where a jury convicted a defendant on insufficient evidence are:

Commonwealth v. Haltiwanger (Massachusetts Appeals Court, No. 20-P-517, May 11, 2021)
Commonwealth v. Condon (Massachusetts Appeals Court, No. 19-P-722, December 18, 2020)
Commonwealth v. Rijo (Massachusetts Appeals Court, NO. 19-P-1385, December 2, 2020)
Commonwealth v. Dunphe (Supreme Judicial Court No. SJC-12533, October 20, 2020)

Commonwealth v. Letendre (Massachusetts Appeals Court, No. 18-P-1445, July 10, 2020)
Commonwealth v. Klapman, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 1103 (2019)
Commonwealth v. Grayson, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 748 (2019)
Commonwealth v. Randall, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 1103 (2019)

Commonwealth v. Cueva, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 780 (2019)

In all of these cases a defendant was convicted despite the fact that the government failed to prove the defendant's guilt. While the convictions were set aside on appeal, it is conceivable, if not likely, that these defendant's experienced the consequences of the conviction prior to the correction of the conviction, perhaps incarceration, loss of driving privileges, revocation of a firearms license, loss of job, etc. Many may have incurred the legal expense of pursuing an appeal and all suffered the stress of a wrongful conviction. Some wrongful convictions may not have been appealed at all.

A jury's obvious difficulty with these basic concepts places a defendant in a difficult position: seemingly the jury needs impassioned commentary on the concepts of proof of a crime and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but emphasizing the government's burden of proof to some extent conveys the notion that the defendant "did it" but the government can't prove it. 

These cases demonstrate the need for experienced trial counsel to address these difficult and sensitive matters.