Court tells man he will die in prison for gunning down four musicians in a Dorchester basement

The Supreme Judicial Court today upheld Calvin Carnes's four consecutive life terms for murdering four aspiring musicians in a basement recording studio on Bourneside Street in 2005:

We discern no reason to order a new trial or reduce the convictions of murder in the first degree to a lesser degree of guilt.

Carnes had appealed his sentences in part because the judge in his trial did not declare a mistrial during complicated jury deliberations: The jury apparently deadlocked several times, the judge agreed to dismiss two jurors who had prior travel arrangements and to seat two alternates. The jury then reported it was deadlocked again, 11-1. When the judge learned one juror had lied on her jury questionnaire (she did not disclose her ex-husband had a criminal record or that she had sought restraining orders against him), she dismissed that juror and appointed another alternate. The next day, the jury convicted Carnes of the four murders.

The court rejected Carnes's argument that once deliberations began, the prosecution had no business looking into the juror's past and that the judge should have declared a mistrial rather than continuing to allow the deliberations, saying the judge was correct in determining the jury had not finished "due and thorough" deliberations at each point it sent a note to the judge expressing frustration, because the case against Carnes involved 11 indictments, and more than 60 witnesses and 200 exhibits over a three-week trial, which is not something that can be easily sorted out quickly.

The court said prosecutors learned "benignly" of the woman's lies (a victim witness advocate in the DA's office recognized her in the courthouse one day). Still, the justices noted:

After the trial in this case, however, further experience with juror issues led us to conclude that, after the jury are sworn, "any check of CORI records or other inquiry into juror misconduct, whether sought by the prosecution or the defendant, may be done only with the approval of the trial judge." See Commonwealth v. Hampton, ante at 152, 171 (2010). Accordingly, should a situation such as the one in this case arise in the future (recognition of a juror as a participant in a prior legal proceeding), the prosecutor (or defense counsel) must inform the judge of the issue and obtain court approval to undertake further investigation of the juror or anyone involved with the subject matter.

Complete ruling.