Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
SJC asked to overturn conviction in Commonwealth v. Ralph Brown amid dispute over voir dire and sufficiency of evidence
Summary
At oral argument in docket SJC13487, defense counsel Richard Hartquist urged the court to reverse based on improper voir dire about motive and insufficient evidence tying Ralph Brown to the driver role; the Commonwealth, represented by Brooke Hartley, defended the trial judge’s decisions and argued circumstantial evidence was sufficient.
Oral argument in the Supreme Judicial Court for docket SJC13487, Commonwealth v. Ralph Brown, focused on two central issues: whether prosecutors improperly asked prospective jurors about motive during voir dire and whether the evidence was sufficient to place Ralph Brown in the driver’s seat of the vehicle used in a fatal shooting.
Attorney Richard Hartquist, representing Ralph Brown, told the court that motive questioning during voir dire improperly introduced trial facts to prospective jurors and risked committing jurors to a verdict before evidence was presented. “Voir dire is about the jurors. It’s not about the case,” Hartquist said, arguing the questioning—asking whether jurors could still convict if there were no motive evidence—functioned like a commitment question and undermined the defendant’s right to an impartial jury.
Hartquist also pressed the court on a…
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
