Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears juror-bias, evidence and closing-argument challenges in Commonwealth v. Jones
Summary
In argument over multiple claims, defense counsel complained a juror's ambiguous voir dire answer should have triggered follow-up, challenged admission of Hertz rental records, and raised claims about alleged sleeping juror and prosecutorial closing remarks; prosecutors said the trial judge acted within discretion and that some issues were waived
The appeals court heard arguments in Commonwealth v. Jones on multiple trial errors the defense says warrant reversal, including admission of rental-company records, a juror-vetting dispute over an answer about race and crime, an alleged sleeping juror, and prosecutorial remarks in closing.
Attorney Matthew Malm, representing the appellant, told the court the trial judge wrongly allowed admission of Hertz rental records linking the defendant to a vehicle; he said the Commonwealth later "confessed error" on that point. He pressed whether the remaining convictions would stand without that evidence. Malm focused much of his oral argument on juror number…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
