Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trial Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
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 was “inimical to the truth-seeking process,” because it exposed the witness to information the defense had sought to keep from the jury.
The Commonwealth’s Ian MacLean told the court the judge acted within her discretion after defense counsel persisted for several pages arguing perjury. MacLean said the judge reasonably sought to confirm whether, on the cold record, the questions and answers actually amounted to perjury and that a limited voir dire was one permissible method to resolve the dispute: “the judge decided to take this seriously and make sure that she hadn't mistakenly understood the testimony.”
Shaw emphasized the right of the accused to continue cross-examination and argued the judge’s decision to stop the cross and hold a voir dire undermined the defense strategy to impeach credibility in front of the jury. “The judge then allows a voir dire… and the prosecutor is revealing the information that defense counsel possessed in order to undermine credibility, and then he changes his testimony,” Shaw said.
MacLean responded that the judge faced repeated insistence that the witness had committed perjury and had discretion to ensure she had not misapprehended the testimony. He argued that the judge could have reasonably chosen a voir dire to clarify whether perjury occurred rather than immediately granting a mistrial.
The Supreme Court heard competing claims about trial procedure and the defendant's confrontation and impeachment rights; the trial record shows the judge denied the mistrial motion and ordered the voir dire, a ruling the Commonwealth defends as within trial discretion.
