There was an unusual case published today by the Appeals Court. A woman was charged with assault and battery in New Bedford District Court. She opted to have the case decided at a bench trial.
Bench trials are far more informal than jury trials. In fact, most bench trials take place during the court’s daily criminal session. Often, in the interest of time, the prosecutor waives opening argument and goes straight to presenting evidence.
That apparently happened in this woman’s case. The prosecutor waived opening argument, presented his evidence, and ultimately met his burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The woman appealed the conviction arguing that she had ineffective assistance of counsel. She claimed that her attorney should have moved for a required finding of not guilty as soon as the prosecutor waived opening argument.
This argument is almost laughable to any criminal attorney who has seen and participated in a decent number of bench trials. Things may be different in New Bedford. But here, in western Massachusetts, only the most obnoxious lawyer would ask for a required finding before the prosecutor has presented his case.
Unsurprisingly the Appeals Court rejected the woman’s argument:
The defendant premises her claim on the proposition that the prosecution must always deliver an opening statement providing sufficient evidence to sustain its burden of proof. We find no legal basis for that proposition. No Massachusetts appellate decision holds that the Commonwealth must make an opening statement.
The full text of the opinion is attached below.