Defense says jury was denied chance to see defendant off medication in Commonwealth v. Pena

Justice Rubin and the panel heard argument in Commonwealth v. Pena over whether the trial judge improperly prevented the jury from observing the defendant in an unmedicated state.

Defense attorney Benan told the court that the right to present a defense and Supreme Judicial precedents such as Loraine required that jurors be able to see the defendant ‘‘in his natural…way’’ rather than only during a short, medicated hour of testimony. Benan said jurors rely on lay observations of demeanor and urged that barring an in‑person, unmedicated display deprived the defendant of meaningful evidence bearing on criminal responsibility.

The panel pressed counsel on key factual predicates. Justice Tune and Justice Massing asked whether the record showed the defendant was unmedicated at the time of the alleged crimes, whether he was medicated during trial, and whether the defense had offered expert testimony to connect medication to the relevant mental‑state issues. Benan acknowledged ambiguities in the record about medication compliance but said lay observation still has probative force and that factual disputes about medication are for the jury.

Commonwealth counsel (argument later) emphasized that Loraine is narrow and that later decisions limit its reach: where the defendant lacks a psychotic condition treated by medication, an unmedicated display may not be probative. The Commonwealth urged that the trial record contained multiple expert opinions finding no psychotic disorder and that any unmedicated display would have little probative value while posing substantial risks of prejudice or disruption.

The panel’s questioning focused on three practical thresholds: (1) whether the defendant was unmedicated at the time of the offense, (2) whether medication at trial materially changed presentation, and (3) whether the defense met any preconditions for relief (for example, offering an expert to show medication affected the mental condition relevant to criminal responsibility). Counsel for both sides agreed the legal standard required a careful balancing of probative value and prejudice. The case was submitted to the panel for decision.

What happens next: the appeals court has taken the argument and will issue an opinion addressing whether the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and any related procedural limitations warranted reversal or were harmless error.