Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Defense asked for mistrial after alleging officer perjury; prosecutor and trial judge justified voir dire
Summary
Defense counsel moved for a mistrial and accused a prosecution witness of perjury; the trial judge denied mistrial but held a voir dire that the defense says improperly curtailed cross-examination and allowed the witness to change testimony, while the Commonwealth says repeated allegations of perjury justified the judge’s inquiry.
At oral argument in Commonwealth v. Almeda, defense counsel told the Supreme Court the trial judge should not have cut off cross-examination and permitted a voir dire that, the defense says, allowed a prosecution witness to learn disputed facts and then change testimony.
Robert Shaw summarized the trial sequence: during cross-examination the defense moved for a mistrial on perjury grounds and asked the judge to inquire; the judge denied the mistrial but later permitted a voir dire. Shaw said the voir dire “gave him a dry run” and…
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
