A successful defense against criminal charges is a journey of many steps. All steps are critical to reaching the desired destination, even if some occur before either side makes an opening statement at trial. Presenting the most robust and effective defense possible means ensuring that all of these steps are attended to with utmost care and in-depth knowledge of the law and the rules of procedure. If you are facing charges, make sure you are equipped to put that kind of defense by retaining an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer.
One vital pretrial step is proper discovery. Another is conducting voir dire and selecting a jury.
The murder trial of Z. A.-M., a man accused of fatally shooting a high school assistant principal from Baltimore, was one of those cases where voir dire was crucially important.
The accused man’s defense was that he shot the principal in self-defense. In this matter, as is true in all Maryland criminal trials, the defense formulates a written list of proposed voir dire questions for the panel of potential jurors. These answers allow the state and the defense to identify potential jurors they want to exclude.
Parties may seek to exclude potential jurors for cause, or they may use what is called a “peremptory challenge” to exclude a potential juror without having to state a reason. Parties have wide latitude regarding how they use their peremptory challenges, but there are limits. The state, for example, cannot use its peremptory challenges to exclude all the Black potential jurors from a panel.
In Z. A.-M.’s case. one of the defense’s proposed questions was, “Does any member of the panel have strong feelings about allegations involving the use of a firearm?” The trial court declined to allow the question, determining that “the question had been ‘covered’ because [the court] already asked prospective jurors ‘if they have strong feelings about the crime of murder.’”
The jury ultimately found the accused man guilty.
The Appellate Court reversed that conviction and ordered a new trial. Similar to how litigants use peremptory challenges, trial judges have broad discretion in deciding what proposed voir dire questions will be asked… and which will not. That discretion, like litigants’ ability to use peremptory challenges, is not without boundaries.
Challenges for a Specific Cause
Those limitations go to the heart of Maryland’s law regarding challenges for a specific cause. The law says parties may use these challenges when
- a statute disqualifies a prospective juror or
- a “collateral matter is reasonably liable to have undue influence over a prospective juror.”
The latter of those two refers to juror “biases directly related to the crime, the witnesses, or the defendant.” Here, the biases the defense wanted to probe went to the heart of the crime and the defense’s contention of self-defense. For a defendant to mount a successful self-defense argument, he must show he used “reasonable force,” which, in Maryland, means only as much force as is reasonably necessary. As the Appellate Court pointed out, a potential juror with staunch anti-handgun views might sincerely believe that discharging a handgun is never reasonably necessary. A person with that perspective would automatically be incapable of giving “fair and impartial consideration” to the accused’s self-defense arguments and evidence.
Given the close connection of the question to the crime at issue (murder with a handgun that includes possible self-defense,) the trial court was required to put forth the question the defense sought. The failure to ask the question deprived the man of a fair trial.
If you have been accused of a crime, acting with all due haste is essential. That includes retaining skilled legal counsel. The experienced Maryland criminal defense attorneys at Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC have the skills and experience to help you navigate the process effectively and successfully. Contact us today at 301-519-2801 or via our online form to set up your consultation.