Putting forward a criminal defense involves much more than simply making a trial presentation. Criminal cases may be functionally won or lost before either side makes its opening argument to the jury. Processes like the jury selection process are crucial, as removing jurors with biases may be vital to getting a fair trial. That is especially true in cases involving emotionally charged subject matter, like sex crimes, crimes against minors, and especially child sexual abuse. Whatever crimes you face, you need to do everything you can to ensure you get a fair chance and a level playing field. That starts with retaining an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer.
The jury selection process in Maryland criminal trials involves the judge asking potential jurors several questions. This process, voir dire, is intended to draw out potential jurors’ prejudices that might affect their ability to decide the case impartially. Counsel for the accused and the state can ask the court to exclude potential jurors based on the voir dire answers given. (The law also allows the two sides to exclude potential jurors for no reason, but prohibits using those “peremptory challenges” based on discriminatory motives.)
Voir dire — and when a proposed question is (or is not) mandatory — was at the center of a major new ruling from the Maryland Supreme Court released earlier this month. This decision further strengthens the tools the defense has available for unearthing juror biases.
When Trial Judge Must Ask Voir Dire Questions
In 2007, as part of a man’s appeal of his child sex crime conviction, the Maryland Supreme Court established a list of six areas where voir dire inquiry was mandatory in the case of Stewart v. State. Those areas included:
- prejudice against an accused due to race, ethnicity, or cultural heritage,
- whether the nature of the alleged crime, coupled with the juror’s religious affiliation, would prejudice the juror,
- whether a juror would consider convicting based upon circumstantial evidence (death penalty cases only),
- whether a juror would give undue credibility to a law enforcement officer based on their status,
- whether the juror held particularly “strong feelings” about drug crimes, and
- whether the juror held particularly “strong feelings” about alleged sexual crimes against minors.
That list and the court’s 2007 opinion were at the center of a Baltimore man’s 2024 appeal of his 2022 conviction for allegedly sexually abusing his then-nine-year-old daughter.
The daughter was the state’s star witness at trial. During voir dire, the father’s attorney sought to probe potential jurors’ views about child witnesses. Specifically, the attorney wanted to explore whether a potential juror might assign unearned credibility to a child witness accusing a close relative of sex crimes. (As the man’s counsel explained, “I’ve spoken to some people and they believe … if a child makes those allegations against their parent, there’s some truth to it.”)
The defense proposed a two-part question, asking “Do you have any concerns about a child testifying? Does anyone not believe that a child is capable of lying about a serious crime like this?” The judge kept the first query but tossed the second. No potential juror indicated having any concerns about child witnesses.
Ultimately, the jury found the man guilty and the court sentenced him to 25 years.
Child Witnesses and the Law of Mandatory Voir Dire Questions
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court reversed that conviction and ordered a new trial. In doing so, the court clarified how trial judges should handle proposed voir dire questions from counsel. It also reversed part of the 2007 ruling that created the mandatory voir dire list.
The law in Maryland demands that trial judges ask proposed voir dire questions if the case involves a witness “a qualifying witness, one, who, because of occupation or category, may be favored, or disfavored, simply” based on their status.
In the Baltimore case, the prosecutor objected to the defense’s two-part question but did not object to the defense attorney’s underlying rationale of jurors harboring potential biases in favor of child witnesses who accuse family members of sex crimes.
Additionally, the defense need not phrase the question properly to trigger a mandatory question. Counsel for the accused father proposed asking jurors if they believed that a child was incapable of lying about a serious crime like sex abuse by a parent. That wording was not proper because it “baked” the defense’s theory of the case into it – namely, that the daughter was not truthful.
Refusing to ask that question was proper. However, the judge acted incorrectly by failing to put forward any question on the topic. The Supreme Court noted the existence of alternate proper phrasing, such as asking “whether any prospective jurors would have been more or less likely to believe a witness merely because the witness was a child.” Another option to which the court alluded quizzed jurors whether they “would give more weight” (or “less weight”) to the testimony of a child witness solely because the witness was a child.
The law required that the judge ask jurors something on this topic. The absence of that question deprived the father of his Sixth Amendment rights and required a reversal of his conviction.
As noted above, the key factors that lead to a just outcome in your criminal case may be things that transpire long before you appear at trial. That is one reason why retaining skilled legal counsel as soon as possible is so important. The knowledgeable and tenacious Maryland criminal defense attorneys at Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC have been defending accused people in the Bay State for many years, helping them navigate all the processes from police questioning to pretrial processes to the trial itself. Contact us today at 301-519-2801 or via our online form to set up your consultation to learn more.