Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
Facing criminal charges in Massachusetts can be a daunting experience, especially when errors occur during the legal process. In a recent Massachusetts case, a defendant charged with OUI fifth offense and other offenses raised concerns about the denial of attorney-led voir dire. The Recent appellate ruling demonstrates that judges can make mistakes during a trial, but the result may stand if the error is deemed harmless.
According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the case involved the defendant being witnessed driving erratically near the Sagamore Bridge. After he was stopped, the defendant faced multiple charges, including OUI fifth offense, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, leaving the scene of an accident, and more. As part of their case in chief, the prosecution presented evidence of the defendant’s erratic behavior, including tailgating, throwing objects from the vehicle, and ultimately crashing into a tree.
The defendant’s defense team sought attorney-led voir dire under Massachusetts District Court Standing Order 1-18(2018). The motion was denied without explanation, leading to a contention that the denial violated the standing order. On appeal, the higher court agreed with the defendant that he should have been permitted to perform the voir dire. While the judge’s error is acknowledged, the critical question arises: does this error warrant relief?
The standing order outlines the procedures for voir dire in criminal cases, requiring timely submission of requests for attorney-led voir dire. The defendant argued that the denial of the motion violated the clear mandate of the standing order. While the Commonwealth raised timeliness concerns, the standing order’s specific provisions on voir dire requests prevailed.
The appellate court acknowledged the defendant’s assertion that attorney-led voir dire improves the process of discovering juror prejudice. However, it critically evaluates whether the denial of attorney-led voir dire in this case resulted in prejudice. Despite the judge’s error, the court concluded that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice, referencing case law to support this assessment.
Judges have broad discretion in conducting voir dire, even in the absence of attorney-led questioning. A judge’s refusal to ask specific questions posed by the defendant did not necessarily undermine the fairness of the trial. Additionally, it notes that the defendant raised no objection when the judge found the jurors indifferent, further highlighting the importance of timely objections. Although this finding or error did not result in a reversal, it is possible that the trial attorney would have objected properly and left a record for the appellate to determine that the error was not necessarily harmless.
Speak with an Experienced Boston OUI Lawyer About Your Case Today
If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges in Massachusetts, it’s crucial to be aware that navigating your prosecution can be an uphill battle. Judges may be permitted to make mistakes without consequence, and having a knowledgeable defense attorney who is quick on their feet is important to help even the playing field. The Massachusetts criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy are experienced in handling the best and worst judges in the state, and we can help fight the charges against you. Our firm represents clients facing all Massachusetts misdemeanors and felonies, including OUI offenses. Contact our office at 617-367-0450 to schedule a free and confidential consultation with one of our lawyers.