Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the For Cause Challenge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
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 “some misgivings about police officers and their ability to assess the situation when they're under stress,” and conceded “yeah” when pressed that she had some concerns. MacLean argued that a juror’s failure to state unequivocally that she can set aside doubts and follow instructions is a proper basis for a for-cause excusal.
Defense counsel Robert Shaw distinguished Williams, which forbids for-cause removal where a juror brings life experiences into deliberations, and argued the trial judge improperly applied a lens that discounted the juror’s substantive responses and relied on perceived hesitation. Shaw told the court there was “absolutely nothing about this individual that would provide a legitimate reason to wanna strike him” (referring earlier to juror 101) and argued the same caution should guide juror 92’s assessment when the juror’s skepticism reflected community-informed views rather than an inability to follow instructions.
The record shows Judge James exercised discretion to remove juror 92 for cause after follow-up questioning and observation of hesitation. The Commonwealth defended that decision as within the range of reasonable alternatives because the judge could view demeanor and ambiguity on the cold record and conclude the juror would not unequivocally set aside doubts.
The Supreme Court will resolve whether the trial judge’s demeanor-based determination and the juror’s equivocal answers satisfied the legal standard for for-cause excusal under Williams and related authority.
