Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears challenge to juror seating and sufficiency of evidence in Commonwealth v. Rosa
Summary
Defense counsel argued juror 37 equivocated about bias and that the evidence did not prove constructive possession; the Commonwealth said the juror gave direct answers and the record allowed a permissible inference that the defendant exercised dominion over the gun.
BOSTON — On Jan. 14, 2026, a state appeals court heard arguments in Commonwealth v. Rosa, where the defendant challenged his conviction on two grounds: the seating of a juror who, defense counsel said, equivocated during voir dire, and the sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession of a firearm.
Defense attorney Kevin DeMello told the three-judge panel that juror number 37 repeatedly gave equivocal answers when asked about bias stemming from a background of trusting law enforcement and military authority. DeMello said those responses — including that the juror ‘‘would do my best’’ and that he ‘‘should be able to’’ set bias aside — did not amount to the unequivocal statement required to guarantee a fair trial and that the judge abused discretion by keeping the juror on the panel.
DeMello also argued the Commonwealth presented only competing inferences about who owned and placed the gun found under a car seat. He said there was no direct evidence tying the weapon to Mr. Rosa and that the jury was left choosing among equally plausible explanations, which he said should have created reasonable doubt.
Assistant District Attorney John Wendell disputed the defense framing. Wendell recited the voir dire exchange and said the juror twice answered the court’s question directly: "Yes, I think I am," and later confirmed he could be fair and impartial. Wendell argued those answers showed the juror had been rehabilitated and that the trial judge acted within his discretion.
On the sufficiency issue, Wendell urged the court to view the record in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, pointing to testimony that items had been placed in the vehicle, the gun was found within the defendant’s reach, and the vehicle’s owner denied ownership. Taken together, Wendell said, the jury could permissibly infer that Mr. Rosa exercised dominion or control over the firearm.
The panel extensively questioned both sides about the standard of review for juror challenges, the weight to be afforded on-the-record equivocations, and how to resolve competing inferences on a sufficiency claim. After argument, the case was submitted for decision.
The court did not announce a ruling at the hearing; the matter remains under submission.
