Ciummei v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
378 Mass. 504, 392 N.E.2d 1186 (1979)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Although not constitutionally required, to ensure a jury trial waiver is voluntary and intelligent, Massachusetts trial judges must, on a prospective basis, conduct an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. For waivers preceding this rule, validity may be determined by examining extrinsic evidence beyond the trial record.

Facts:

On October 29, 1975, Keith D. Ciummei entered a pharmacy in Worcester.
Ciummei handed an employee a note reading, 'Get me the money,' while pointing a gun at her.
The employee surrendered $79 in a prescription bag to Ciummei.
Shortly thereafter, Ciummei was arrested in the vicinity, and the note, money, and weapon were found on his person.
The weapon was later identified as a starter pistol, incapable of firing a bullet.
Ciummei had a documented history of mental health challenges and intellectual limitations, with I.Q. scores in the 61-75 range.
Prior to trial, psychiatric reports concluded that Ciummei was competent to stand trial.
Ciummei's attorney discussed the option of a jury waiver with him, advising that a bench trial presented a better chance of conviction on a lesser charge than armed robbery.

Procedural Posture:

Keith D. Ciummei was charged with armed robbery in Worcester County Superior Court.
At the commencement of trial, Ciummei submitted a written waiver of his right to a jury trial.
Following a bench trial, the judge found Ciummei guilty of the lesser included offense of unarmed robbery and imposed a sentence.
Ciummei filed a petition for a writ of error in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, arguing his jury waiver was not voluntary or intelligent.
A single justice referred the matter to a special master, who conducted an evidentiary hearing.
The special master issued a report finding that the jury waiver was in fact voluntary and intelligent.
A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court confirmed the master's report.
The single justice then reserved and reported the case for a decision by the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Due Process Clause require that a criminal defendant's waiver of the right to a trial by jury be established by a contemporaneous colloquy on the trial record, precluding the use of extrinsic evidence to prove the waiver was voluntary and intelligent?

Opinions:

Majority - Kaplan, J.

No. The Due Process Clause does not require a contemporaneous colloquy on the record to validate a waiver of the right to a jury trial, and courts may consider extrinsic evidence to determine if the waiver was voluntary and intelligent. The court distinguished a jury waiver from a guilty plea, as addressed in Boykin v. Alabama. A guilty plea is tantamount to a conviction and waives three fundamental constitutional rights (jury trial, confrontation, and privilege against self-incrimination), whereas a jury waiver merely substitutes the fact-finder from a jury to a judge while leaving the trial process intact. While not constitutionally mandated, the court, using its supervisory power for the sound administration of justice, prospectively required that Massachusetts trial judges conduct an on-the-record colloquy to ensure any future jury waiver is voluntary and intelligent. Applying the existing standard to Ciummei's case, the court examined extrinsic evidence, including psychiatric reports affirming his competency, testimony from his attorney regarding their discussions, and Ciummei's prior experience with the court system. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that despite his limitations, Ciummei's waiver was made with reasonable knowledge and was therefore valid.

Analysis:

This decision creates a significant new procedural safeguard in Massachusetts criminal law by mandating a jury waiver colloquy. By declining to make the colloquy a constitutional requirement, the court distinguished jury waivers from guilty pleas and avoided invalidating past convictions that lacked such a record. The prospective application of the new rule provides clear guidance for trial courts, aiming to reduce post-conviction challenges and ensure that defendants fully understand the important right they are relinquishing. The case clarifies that the standard for competency to waive a jury is the same as the standard for competency to stand trial.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Ciummei v. Commonwealth (1979)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"