A courtroom is no place for a nap
For the second time this year, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals has had to consider whether a defendant got a fair trial when one of the jurors fell asleep during testimony.
This past spring, the court overturned a man's coke-distribution conviction because the judge in the case failed to hold a hearing on what to do about a juror who appeared to have fallen asleep.
In a ruling today, the court said lawyers for a man convicted of selling coke in the South End would have grounds for a motion seeking a new trial because a juror in his trial fell asleep. The court did not, however, reverse his conviction because his appeal focused mainly on other arguments - which the court found lacking - and the judges said they didn't have enough evidence either way as to the impact of the sleepy juror on his conviction.
In the South End case, the judge and lawyers noticed the snoozing juror while discussing an unrelated matter. The judge then called a recess and the woman woke up. The appeals court notes:
A judicial observation that a juror is asleep, or a judge's receipt of reliable information to that effect, requires prompt judicial intervention to protect the rights of the defendant and the rights of the public, which for intrinsic and instrumental reasons also has a right to decisions made by alert and attentive jurors. To be sure, the judge has discretion regarding the nature of the intervention and the remedies for any sleeping that has occurred. If the sleeping is observed at the outset or when the juror is beginning to "nod off," it is likely that a break or a stretch will suffice.
