Appeals court hears challenge to trial judge’s handling of jury deadlocks and disputed video evidence in Commonwealth v. Curtis Stubbs

The Massachusetts Appeals Court on an oral-argument panel heard arguments in Commonwealth v. Curtis Stubbs over whether the trial judge erred after jurors sent three notes saying they were deadlocked and over the sufficiency of video and identification evidence used at trial.

Curtis Stubbs, the defendant in the underlying criminal case, told the panel he objected when the trial judge declined to dismiss the jury after the third deadlock and instead allowed a brief period in which jurors continued to deliberate off the record. "Section 68(c) ... stands far to prevent jurors from being coerced," Stubbs said, arguing the judge failed to follow what he identified as the statutory mandate and that the delay coerced jurors. He also told the court, "My case is devoid of any whatsoever of direct evidence connecting me to the case," and said the prosecution’s case relied on weak circumstantial evidence and a disputed video identification.

Assistant District Attorney Kristen Jang, arguing for the Commonwealth, told the panel she saw no error in how the trial judge, Judge Lang, handled the circumstances. "In my view of the record, I do not see any issues with the way Judge Lang handled these pretty ... specific and uncommon circumstances here," Jang said. She told the court the record shows the jury continued to deliberate on its own during the few minutes it took officers to assemble and return the panel to the courtroom, and that the trial included substantial evidence: a five-day trial with multiple witnesses, extensive surveillance and compilation footage, and photo-array identifications.

At issue was a statutory provision the defense cited as requiring that a jury that reports it cannot agree after "due and thorough deliberations" not be sent out again without its consent. Stubbs said the trial judge gave what Stubbs described as a "light" version of a supplemental jury instruction earlier, then later did not immediately recall and dismiss jurors after the third deadlock. Jang and the panel discussed whether, on these facts, the judge retained discretion and whether the jury continued deliberating of its own accord during the short interval before the jurors were brought back into the courtroom.

The parties also disputed limits on cross-examination of the prosecution’s video analyst and what the analyst could testify to about what is visible in the surveillance footage. Stubbs argued he was prevented from asking whether tattoos visible on the defendant in person could be seen on the video and said that limitation prejudiced his ability to impeach the Commonwealth’s identification evidence. Jang and the panel responded that questions about what a factfinder can see on a video ordinarily go to the jury, and that testimony about how the compilation video was created and why particular frames (for example, an expanded license-plate frame) were highlighted was relevant to the police investigation and the compilation’s construction.

The panel asked several procedural and evidentiary questions, including whether jurors can change their minds after submitting a final note and whether individual polling of jurors by the clerk would require asking each juror in open court whether they consent to further deliberation. The judges also questioned the parties about the difference between testimony about why a video compilation highlighted particular frames and testimony about the visual detail visible to a juror.

After argument, Judge Desmond said, "Hearing none, the matter's been submitted." The panel took the case under submission for decision; no ruling was issued at the hearing.

Background details discussed at argument: the trial ran five days; jurors reported being deadlocked three separate times; the court had previously given supplemental instruction(s) the defense called a "light" Rodriguez-style instruction; the third jury note prompted an exchange in which the judge indicated he might declare a mistrial if the impasse persisted. The hearing was one of six matters on the court's calendar that morning, and each side had the court’s usual 15 minutes for oral argument.

The appeals argument focused strictly on the trial record and statutory and evidentiary questions; the panel did not announce a decision at the session and indicated it would issue its ruling after reviewing the record and briefs.