Commonwealth v. Miller (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-129-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-10640 COMMONWEALTH vs. DAVID T. MILLER. Bristol. May 6, 2016. – August 17, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Cordy, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.[1] Homicide. Firearms. Search and Seizure, Warrant, Expectation of privacy. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Standing to question constitutionality, Privacy. Evidence, Firearm, Hearsay, Chain of custody, Immunized witness, Prior misconduct. Privacy. Jury and Jurors. Witness, Immunity. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Motion to suppress, Warrant, Standing, Waiver, New trial, Jury and jurors, Deliberation of jury, Transcript of testimony before grand jury, Hearsay, Stipulation. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 15, 2006. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Gary A. Nickerson, J.; a second pretrial motion to suppress evidence was considered by John P. Connor, Jr., J.; the cases were tried before Barbara A. Dortch-Okara, J., and a motion for a new trial was considered by her. Jennifer H. O’Brien for the defendant. Corey T. Mastin, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. CORDY, J. On the evening of September 25, 2006, James Cadet was shot and killed. The defendant, David T. Miller, who lived in the same apartment complex as the victim, was indicted for the murder three months later after several witnesses, as well as evidence seized during a search of his apartment building, linked him to the crime. The trial began in February, 2009. The defendant was allowed to conduct the trial pro se but standby counsel, who had been appointed to assist him, actively participated throughout the trial proceedings. On February 24, the jury returned verdicts of guilty of murder in the first degree, on a theory of deliberate premeditation, and of the unlawful possession of a firearm. The next day, standby counsel for the defendant was contacted by a juror who stated that she was troubled by the verdict, and eventually submitted a letter to the judge addressing her concerns. The defendant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial based on information set forth in the juror’s letter, arguing that extraneous material had reached the jury room and tainted the jury’s verdict. The motion was denied in November, 2009, and the defendant’s appeal therefrom was consolidated with his direct appeal. On appeal, the defendant claims error in (1) the denial of his motions […]