Prior to a district court gun trial, a potential juror told defense counsel that he “weighed heavily” on the side of law enforcement because he came from a military family and he worked in a school building.
(I’m not sure how working in a school building makes you more deferential toward police. But I digress.)
The same man then revealed a potential bias against the defendant stemming from the alleged gun charges.
The prospective juror had a negative opinion of guns because “gun violence affected the students at his school, including two of his own students.”
When the judge asked the man if he could set aside his biases and weigh the evidence objectively, the man responded “Yes, I think I am.” and “I should be able to be fair and put aside that way, yes.”
Over defense counsel’s objection, the man was added to the jury which ultimately convicted the defendant of several firearm charges.
The case was appealed and today the Appeals Court issued a slip opinion upholding the conviction.
According to the Appeals Court,
it was within the judge’s discretion to find that [the juror] unequivocally stated his ability to be an impartial juror. See Jaime J., 56 Mass. App. Ct. at 273-275 (not abuse of discretion to empanel jurors who, when asked whether they could be impartial, said, “I probably could do that,” “I think I could,” and “I imagine I could, yeah”). Contrast Commonwealth v. Long, 419 Mass. 798, 804 (1995) (judge erred in failing to excuse prospective juror who stated that he would “do [his] best” to decide case fairly but only “hope[d]” he could be fair to defendant). Moreover, the judge “had the unrivaled benefit of observing first-hand [the juror’s] demeanor and tone,” and he considered those characteristics in finding that juror thirty-seven could be impartial. Commonwealth v. Cash, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 478 (2022). We discern no error.
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.