Commonwealth v. Lang (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-136-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-10405 COMMONWEALTH vs. FRANCIS LANG. Suffolk. November 7, 2014. – August 4, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Cordy, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide. Constitutional Law, Public trial, Jury, Waiver of constitutional rights, Assistance of counsel. Jury and Jurors. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Empanelment of jury, Public trial, Waiver, Instructions to jury, Assistance of counsel. Mental Impairment. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on May 11, 2005. The case was tried before Stephen E. Neel, J., and one issue raised in a motion for a new trial, filed on May 6, 2009, was heard by him; the remaining issue raised in that motion for a new trial was heard by Patrick F. Brady, J., and a motion for reconsideration was considered by him. Ruth Greenberg for the defendant. John P. Zanini, Assistant District Attorney (Edmond J. Zabin, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth. Leslie W. O’Brien, for Richard M. Boucher, Jr., amicus curiae, submitted a brief. HINES, J. During an early morning altercation outside a bar in the Charlestown section of Boston, the defendant, Francis Lang, stabbed the victim, Richard T. Dever, multiple times, causing his death. On December 12, 2006, a jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty.[1] Represented by new counsel on appeal,[2] the defendant claims (1) error in the denial of his motion for a new trial based on a violation of his right to a public trial during jury empanelment; (2) error in the judge’s instructions to the jury; and (3) constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to investigate and to pursue a defense of lack of criminal responsibility.[3] We affirm the defendant’s conviction and the orders denying his motion for a new trial, and we discern no basis to exercise our authority pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E. 1. Background. The jury could have found the following facts. Shortly before midnight on March 18, 2005, the defendant, with a can of beer in hand, entered a bar in Charlestown. Because of an incident several years prior, the defendant had been banned from the bar by the bartender who was on duty when the defendant arrived. The bartender and his sister, a waitress at the bar, were […]