High court okays inconsistent verdicts by judges

By Globe Staff

Judges should avoid rendering inconsistent verdicts in bench trials, but an inconsistent verdict alone does not constitute an error by the judge, the state's highest court ruled today.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in the case of three men who were convicted in a bench trial of heroin charges, but acquitted of cocaine charges, after a raid in the summer of 2004 on a Holyoke apartment. The men were acquitted of the cocaine charges even though both cocaine and heroin had been found in the apartment.

They argued that their convictions should be thrown out because of the inconsistent ruling.

"The judge's findings in this case appear to be factually inconsistent. The evidence was that in every location in which there was heroin, cocaine was also found," the court said.

The court said the law is clear that juries can return inconsistent verdicts because of a compromise within a jury or a desire to be lenient. But it was considering for the first time whether judges could do so.

The court ruled that inconsistent verdicts should be avoided -- and a judge should explain them when they are made. But it also said that an apparent inconsistency in a judge's findings is "insufficient to create an inference of irregularity."

• Comment
• Permalink
• Email