Counsel for the appellant in Commonwealth v. Bridal Vines asked the appeals panel for an evidentiary hearing focused on a disputed voir dire exchange and later sentencing procedure.

Attorney Paul Brennan argued that juror number 3 had given answers during voir dire that raised race-based concerns and that prior counsel (Attorney Benzigan) did not adequately inform the defendant of the substance such that the defendant could make an informed choice about conceding that juror. Brennan urged the court to order a hearing to resolve the credibility dispute between an affidavit from Benzigan and the defendant’s account.

The panel explored whether the decision to use a peremptory strike (or not) is a tactical decision reviewable only for manifest unreasonableness, and whether, even if Benzigan’s affidavit is credited, the substance conveyed to the defendant was sufficiently detailed. Brennan contended counsel had a duty to convey the material substance of the juror’s response.

On sentencing, Brennan argued that when Judge Moriarty vacated an illegal sentence, the defendant was not given a live opportunity to make sentencing argument at resentencing, and he asked whether that procedural omission requires relief. The panel and the Commonwealth debated whether a written correction on the docket suffices or whether in-person hearing rights apply when a different judge conducts resentencing.

The Plymouth County attorney and the Commonwealth urged deference, arguing counsel’s decisions were tactical, an affidavit described consultations with the defendant, and the sentencing record allowed the subsequent judge to familiarize himself with proceedings. The court took the matter under advisement.