WBUR

Judge Dismisses Juror In Mattapan Murders Case

BOSTON — A judge has dismissed a juror in the retrial of a Boston man charged with fatally shooting four people and leaving a fifth paralyzed during a drug-related robbery.

Suffolk Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Locke sent the juror home Monday after learning that the man had conducted online research into ballistics and shared it with other jurors in the trial of Dwayne Moore.

Moore is charged with killing three adults and a toddler in Boston’s Mattapan neighborhood in September 2010. Moore’s first trial ended with a deadlocked jury; his codefendant was acquitted.

Locke told the remaining jurors that the dismissed juror violated his instructions against getting any information outside the evidence presented in court.

“You are not to do anything to try and figure out this case beyond the evidence you have heard in this courtroom,” Locke said, “and if any juror did engage in that sort of conduct, there could be severe consequences.”

The judge appointed a new juror from a pool of alternates.

With reporting by The Associated Press and the WBUR Newsroom

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on wbur.org.
  • igor

    What a strange decision by a judge! The more information jury has, the better the decision! Are they trying to manipulate jurors to make “desirable” decision?

  • dust truck

    More proof that our adversarial system is broken. It doesn’t matter which “team” better here, but it’s more important to this judge that the Lawyers get to play “the game” instead of justice being served.

  • http://profiles.google.com/shava23 Shava Nerad

    I know this sounds weird, but actually, I find myself siding with the judge on this one, to my shock and amazement.

    You have to decide the case on the merits of the evidence as presented, or every bit of information or hearsay presented in the juror’s discussion would have to be vetted for truth value, and entered into the court record, to be fair to the court proceedings.

    Think about it, is everything *you* see on the internet right? Would you want to get convicted of a crime on the basis of something someone got off the internet that didn’t get vetted in court as being scientifically correct and entered into the record so it could be appealed later?

    The information he shared could have been from anywhere. We just don’t know. Yes, the lawyer could have been in the wrong — but we *don’t know*.

    Anything entered into the court record can be called out on appeal. What goes on in deliberations, not so much.

Most Popular