Mass. Supreme Judicial Court hears argument over allegedly inconsistent verdicts in Commonwealth v. Joshua Hart

The Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument on whether jury instructions in the trial of Joshua Hart produced legally inconsistent verdicts that cannot be reconciled.

Steven Maidman, counsel for Joshua Hart, told the court the trial judge used modified model homicide instructions that incorrectly told jurors “the act of the defendant did not complete the crime,” and that error produced verdicts that are “legally inconsistent,” a problem the trial court and parties failed to spot until appeal. Maidman said the record shows multiple acts were at issue and argued the jury could not have rationally found both that one act did not complete the crime and that another did.

The issue matters because inconsistent or “repugnant” verdicts can trigger relief, affect whether a conviction stands, and raise questions about whether a retrial or resentencing is…