The Appeals Court has overturned a jury verdict against a Westfield man charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
Prior to trial, the defendant’s lawyer filed a motion in limine seeking to bar the prosecutor from presenting two racists Facebook posts that were supposedly made by the defendant prior to the alleged A&B. Defense counsel argued that the probative value of the posts was greatly outweighed by the prejudicial affect they could have on jurors.
(To read the posts, see page 2 and 3 of the opinion attached below.)
The judge allowed the defendant’s motion and prohibited the posts. However, at trial, the judge reversed his initial decision and allowed the prosecutor to present the posts to the jury.
The defendant was found guilty and he appealed the verdict.
In considering the admissibility of the posts, the Appeals Court wrote,
although the Facebook posts exhibited some generalized animosity toward [the alleged victims], the admission of racial epithets in evidence requires particular scrutiny because it poses a risk of inflaming a jury’s emotions. Thus, the most significant factor in determining whether racial references are improper is the extent to which they have probative value with respect to the issues at trial. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
Consequently, the Appeals Court concluded that,
the judge made a clear error of judgment in admitting the Facebook posts. Assuming the defendant was the author of the posts, the fact that he referred to [the alleged victims] pejoratively, including the use of racial and ethnic slurs, was powerful evidence of the defendant’s bad character, but weak evidence for any permissible purpose. In determining whether there was an abuse of discretion, we consider whether the judge took care to avoid exposing the jury unnecessarily to material that might inflame [their] emotions and possibly deprive the defendant of an impartial jury. Here, the record does not reflect a thoughtful weighing of the risks of unfair prejudice nor were contemporaneous limiting instructions given to limit such risks. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
Thus, the verdict was reversed.
To read the opinion in its entirety, click the document below.