Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Trial judge excused juror after equivocal answers on police credibility; Supreme Court hears Williams distinction
Summary
The Supreme Court heard argument over whether the trial judge properly granted a for-cause challenge after juror 92 gave hesitant answers about police credibility and refused to give an unequivocal assurance of impartiality; the Commonwealth contends the judge’s credibility and demeanor findings fall within reasonable discretion.
At oral argument in Commonwealth v. Aaron Almeda, the parties debated whether the trial judge properly excused prospective juror 92 for cause after the juror gave hesitant, equivocal responses about assessing police testimony.
Ian MacLean, representing the Commonwealth, told the Supreme Court that juror 92 did not give an unequivocal assurance that she could be fair and impartial. MacLean summarized the exchange: juror 92 initially nodded affirmatively on a credibility question but then said she had…
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
