— was not neutral but, in essence, asked each juror to affirm the judge’s suggestion that he or she had meant to convict the defendant of an offense other than that which had been plainly announced and written on the verdict slips. The message behind the inquiry strongly suggested that the jury’s error had created a difficult situation which the judge wanted fixed forthwith. Rather than allowing the jury to retire in order to clarify their actual intent, the judge’s approach asserted a subtle, yet not insubstantial, form of coercion that urged each juror to commit, by affirmative response in open court, to the judge’s assumption as to his or her intent. Cf. Commonwealth v. Roth, 437 Mass. 777, 786, 789, 792-793 (2002), quoting A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 392 Mass. 52, 56 (1984) (<HOLDING>). The failure of the judge to follow
holding that the term manufacture applied not only to things made but to the practice of making to principles carried into practice in a new manner to new results of principles carried into practice holding that such broken up transactions must be aggregated into one holding impermissible practice of taking partial verdicts from deadlocked juries when single charge is broken down into lesser charges because it would constitute an unwarranted and unwise intrusion into the province of the jury holding that use of volunteer jurors introduced an impermissible subjective element into jury selection holding that the appellate court will not find a fact that was not found below as that would be an intrusion into the province of the trial court