COMMONWEALTH VS. QUINTON K. WILLIAMS
The defendant, Quinton K. Williams, an African-American man, was charged with possession of a class B substance with the intent to distribute.
During jury selection, over the objections of the defendant, the judge excused for cause a prospective juror who stated that she believed that “the system is rigged against young African American males”.
The defendant was subsequently convicted and appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the grounds that the judge abused his discretion in dismissing the prospective juror. Seeing a need to clarify existing jurisprudence on how to assess beliefs or opinions expressed by prospective jurors during voir dire, the Court decided to take this case on for an opportunity to set forth the factors that a judge should consider when a prospective juror discloses a belief or opinion based on his or her world view.
The Court concluded that although the voir dire was incomplete, it did not prejudice this defendant. The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.
During the jury selection process, the prospective juror in question was asked:
Is there anything about the subject matter or your views about the subject matter that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in deciding the case?
The juror answered in the affirmative. The juror was later asked:
You feel like you have a bias in the case?
The prospective juror responded:
Yeah. I worked with, like, low income youth in a school setting. I worked with a lot with people who were convicted of – like teenagers who were convicted of drug crimes…[a]nd frankly, I think the system is rigged against young African American males.
When the judge asked if the juror thought her belief might interfere with her ability to be fair and impartial, she responded:
I don’t think so.
She was then asked if she thought she could put aside that opinion and bias. She answered:
I don’t think I can put it aside…the lens that I view the world through, but I think I can be unbiased…
When questioned more about her potential to be an unbiased juror, she responded with more statements expressing partial certainty such as “I think so” and “probably”.
At the end of the voir dire, the prosecutor asked the judge if the potential juror be excused for cause. The defense counsel objected to this. After some consideration the judge overruled the objection and excused the prospective juror for cause.
The defendant argued on appeal that it was an error to dismiss the prospective juror for cause because neither her work experience nor her belief that the criminal justice system is unfair to African-American men rendered her unfit to serve. The defense argued that the dismissal was prejudicial.
The Court agreed that holding particular beliefs about how African-American men are treated in the criminal justice system should not be automatically disqualifying.It further determined that the voir dire ultimately was incomplete because the judge did not inquire further to determine whether, given the prospective juror’s beliefs based on her life experiences, she nevertheless could fairly evaluate the evidence and follow the law.
The judge instead decided that the prospective juror was not able to be impartial because she expressed uncertainty about being able to “put aside” her beliefs and experiences and because she acknowledged that she would look at the case “differently” due to her experiences.
The Court reasoned that while a judge’s discretion in conducting a voir dire is broad, it is rooted in determining a prospective juror’s impartiality based on the juror’s answers.
The Court established the following as the standard of conducting a voir dire of potential jurors.
Each juror must be impartial as to the persons involved and unprejudiced and uncommitted as to the defendant’s guilt or past misconduct. Judges and attorneys may examine the potential juror specifically with respect to considerations, attitudes, exposure, opinions, or any other matters which may cause a decision to be made in whole or in part upon issues extraneous to the issues of the case.
If it appears that a juror might not stand indifferent, the judge must hold an individual voir dire, the scope of which is within the judge’s sound discretion. Concluding whether a prospective juror stands indifferent is also within the judge’s discretion. It is the judge’s duty to examine jurors fully regarding possible bias or prejudice.
Asking a prospective juror to put aside his or her preconceived notions about the case to be tried is entirely appropriate (and indeed necessary). However, asking him or her to put aside opinions formed based on his or her life experiences or belief system is not.
It is important to distinguish between opinions regarding the case and opinions about particular topics based on a prospective juror’s life experiences or worldview.
The judge must satisfy him or herself that the prospective juror will set aside that opinion or bias and properly weigh the evidence and follow the instructions on the law. It is in the interests of any court of law that persons actually prejudiced not be seated on the jury even if it tends to skew an otherwise balanced panel.
It must be acknowledged that no human being is wholly free of the interests and preferences, which are the product of his cultural, family, and community experience. Nowhere is the dynamic commingling of the ideas and biases of such individuals more essential than inside the jury room. Consequentially, a judge should not expect a prospective juror to set aside an opinion born of the prospective juror’s life experiences or belief system. Jurors do not come to their temporary judicial service as sterile intellectual mechanisms purged of all those subconscious factors which have formed their characters and temperaments, such as racial or ethnic background, sex, economic status, intellectual capacity, family status, religious persuasion, political leanings, educational attainment, moral convictions, employment experience, military service, or their individual appreciations of the social problems of the moment.
It is important to note that some belief systems that may be incompatible with the ability to be a fair and impartial juror. Religious beliefs that prohibit one from sitting in judgment of another are an example.
Discussion: General Issues
Although the juror affirmed that she could be unbiased and could listen to the evidence, it was within the judge’s discretion to inquire further if he was not satisfied that her answer was unequivocal.
The Court importantly determined that the prospective juror phrased the answer to the judge’s questions to reflect the form of the questions. For example, her answer to questions sometimes began with “I think” in response to a question phrased “You think…?” The Court established that an answer that mirrors the syntax of a judge’s question does not necessarily indicate an equivocal answer.
The Court noted that the potential juror did not express any opinions having to do with the defendant or the case about to be tried. She could not be excused for cause merely because he or she believes that African-American males receive disparate treatment in the criminal justice system. It added that a judge should not require a prospective juror to disregard his or her life experiences and resulting beliefs in order to serve.
The Court also noted, citing several cases, that the problem of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system has been an issue the Court has historically sought to address.
The Court also acknowledged the fundamental difference between an inability to disregard one’s life experiences and resulting beliefs with an inability to be impartial. A juror can be dismissed if the judge concludes that the prospective juror is unable to fairly evaluate the evidence presented and properly apply the judge’s instructions on the law.
Lastly, the Court affirmed that judges are expected to, and indeed must, use their discretion and judgment to determine whether a prospective juror will be fair and impartial based on verbal and nonverbal cues as well as the totality of the circumstances in question.
At oral argument the defendant conceded, and the Court agreed, that the defendant suffered no actual prejudice from the error of the incomplete voir dire. However, the defendant did not argue that any member of the jury that ultimately convicted him was biased.
The defendant claimed that striking the prospective juror for cause resulted in structural error, warranting automatic reversal for two reasons:
The Court acknowledged that structural errors defy harmless error analysis and require automatic reversal, but determined that the defendant’s argument that the facts of his case were analogous to cases that have resulted in structural error missed the mark.
The defendant first contended that the dismissal of a prospective juror for cause at the Commonwealth’s request had the practical effect of giving the Commonwealth an “extra” peremptory challenge, and claimed that in such an instance prejudice should be presumed. He added that an extra peremptory challenge erroneously awarded to the Commonwealth is equivalent to denying a valid peremptory challenge to the defendant.
The Court countered by arguing that while acknowledging that the right to be tried by an impartial jury is so basic to a fair trial that an infraction can never be treated as a harmless error, the judge did not deny the defendant the opportunity to exercise a peremptory challenge. Instead, the judge dismissed a prospective juror whom the defendant had hoped would be on the jury. The presumption is that another fair and impartial juror replaced the individual.
On the issue of a jury representing a fair cross section of the community, the Court first notes that the defendant acknowledges that the right to a jury representative of a cross-section of the community cannot require that each jury include constituents of every group in the population. The defendant argued that the dismissal of the prospective juror unduly limited the chances that citizens, including African-Americans, holding the viewpoint of the juror on policing practices would be represented on the jury.
The Court disagreed. It reasoned that the prospective juror was not stuck due to being a member of a discrete group. The judge dismissed the prospective juror after the voir dire because he found that she could not be a fair and impartial juror based on how she responded to his questions. The judge did not conclude or otherwise suggest that the prospective juror’s belief about the criminal justice system was disqualifying in and of itself. The Court affirmed that it is the exclusion of prospective jurors solely by virtue of their membership in, or affiliation with, particularly defined groupings in the community that violate a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury.
Although the voir dire of the prospective juror was incomplete, the defendant had not shown that the resulting dismissal of the prospective juror for cause resulted in prejudice.
Justice Gants Concurs
Justice C.J. Gants wrote a concurrence on this case.
In the concurrence Justice Gants (Justice Gaziano, joining) agrees with the Court that a prospective juror may not be excused for cause from sitting on a jury simply because the juror believes that “the system is rigged against young African American males”.
Gants first establishes that a trial judge often needs to discuss with potential jurors whether their personal beliefs, opinions and life experience would affect their ability to be fair and impartial, and that not every such discussion travels down the same road. As there is no template for questioning a prospective juror, a judge will often recognize that a discussion with a juror could have been handled more artfully.
Gants continues on to state that every prospective juror brings his or her opinions, beliefs, and life experiences to the courthouse when asked to perform juror service. Courts do not require jurors to leave these convictions at the front door, nor could they ever. Courts expect jurors to apply common sense derived from their life experience when evaluating evidence presented at trial. Nowhere is the dynamic comingling of the ideas and biases more essential than inside the jury room.
Gants establishes that the goal in jury selection is not to select jurors without opinions or beliefs, but to select jurors whose opinions and beliefs do not affect their ability to fairly and impartially find the facts, follow the law, and render a just verdict. However he also states that there are certainly opinions, beliefs, and life experiences that might affect a juror’s ability to fairly and impartially find the facts or apply the law, or a judge’s confidence in the juror’s ability to do so.
He argues that even if a juror were to insist that he or she would be fair, a judge would not be faulted—who has the benefit of observing the juror’s affect and demeanor—for questioning the sincerity of the juror’s claim and deciding to excuse the juror for cause. Even if the opinion or belief were not on the fringe would a judge be justified in making this inquiry. Such an interrogation is fair if after the prospective juror’s responses to voir dire questions the judge reasonably concludes that a belief or opinion will cloud the juror’s ability to fairly evaluate the evidence and follow the court’s instructions.
Gants notes that the prospective juror in this case expressed concern about her own potential bias. He inferred from the judge’s questions that he wanted to be assured that the juror would decide the case based solely on the evidence, and that her fact finding would not be unfairly influenced by her opinion and life experience.
He acknowledges that it is not clear whether the judge—who properly emphasized the importance of looking only at the evidence—was directing the juror to set aside any preconceived notions that may have affected her ability to fairly consider the evidence in the case in question or to set aside the “lens” through which she viewed the world. However, he adds that the judge excused this juror for cause not because of her opinions or world view, but because he was not assured of her ability to be impartial.
Gants makes the case that many in Massachusetts, including many African-Americans, share the belief voiced by the prospective juror in question. Aggressively excusing jurors who hold this belief therefore risks excusing a disportionate number of African-American jurors. However, the evaluation of a juror’s demeanor and the prospective juror’s ability to be fair is entitled to a great deal of deference to the judge.
Gants concludes that the judge made a good faith decision to excuse the juror because of concerns about her ability to decide the case based solely on the facts of the case and the law. He agreed that the judge’s decision does not satisfy the test for an abuse of discretion, as a judge’s discretionary decision constitutes an abuse of discretion where we conclude the judge made a clear error judgment in weighing the factors relevant to the decision such that the decision falls outside the range of reasonable alternatives.
IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME, AND YOU NEED AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER WORKING ON YOUR SIDE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, PLEASE CONTACT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. BARABINO.
CALL 781-393-5900 TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR AVAILABLE DEFENSES.
Source: Commonwealth vs. Quinton K. Williams, SJC-12549