Court Opinion

ID: 9752277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:54:13.478399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:12.470619
License: Public Domain

SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
I am unable to agree with my colleagues that Hughes’ convictions should be reversed. I acknowledge that this is a close case, and I agree with much that Judge Reid has written. In my opinion, however, Hughes is in no position to complain on appeal that the trial judge failed to pose questions to Juror No. 1 when, at trial, defense counsel was invited to propound questions to the juror but declined to do so. In addition, I think we owe more deference to the assessment of Juror No. 1 by the trial judge, who had a superior opportunity to appraise the many intangibles that do not find their way into a transcript. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I.
The majority acknowledges that the judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied the defense’s challenge for cause against Juror No. 1 during the initial voir dire. Even if there had been error at that time, there was no prejudice, for Hughes had the opportunity to exercise a peremptory challenge against the juror. Instead, the defense “passed” on two rounds, leaving Juror No. 1 on the jury.
A more difficult issue arose during the trial, when Juror No. 1 told the judge that “[m]y heart is skipping a little bit here.” This comment was precipitated by the juror’s impression that “part of the defense theory seems to be that the prosecutor may have inserted words into the witness’ mouth.” Based on his friendship with former prosecutor Elizabeth Bresee, the juror “absolutely refuse[d] to accept that that may have been done.”
After Juror No. 1 had made this statement, the judge asked counsel for the parties if they wished to question the juror. Significantly, neither attorney posed any questions, and the judge was not asked to propound any. In fact, both parties appeared to be satisfied with Juror No. 1. The prosecutor *1212argued that defense counsel had not challenged this juror and that the defense had “chosen to attack the credibility of the parties involved,” as distinguished from the integrity of the prosecutor. Defense counsel stated: “My responsibility, your honor.” The meaning of this comment is not clear, but Hughes’ attorney was apparently indicating that it was his job to object if the juror was not satisfactory to the defense, and that he was not objecting. The court then adjourned for the weekend.
When trial resumed on the following Monday, Hughes’ attorney announced that he had changed his mind, and he now asked the judge to discharge Juror No. 1 for cause. The judge demurred, noting that “thus far, there has been no evidence that I’m aware of to put Ms. Bresee’s conduct at issue.” He added that “I don’t think [the jurors are] going to be called upon to make any assessment of Ms. Bresee or her conduct.” Hughes’ attorney responded: “I don’t think they will either.... [W]e’re not even stating that [Ms. Bresee] did anything wrong.” Counsel based his challenge, instead, on the concern that, on account of Juror No. l’s friendship with Ms. Bresee, “there may be a bit of feeling that — that he will have a feeling towards — a good feeling towards the prosecution as against the defense attorney and the defense case.” The judge denied the challenge for cause, commenting that he had previously explored during voir dire the question whether Juror No. 1 could be impartial.
II.
Juror No. 1 made it clear that he did not believe that Ms. Bresee would put words into a witness’ mouth or do anything dishonest. At one point, he indicated that he believed that the defense might try to show that Ms. Bresee had done something wrong. I agree that if Ms. Bresee’s integrity had in fact been challenged by the defense, then retention of Juror No. 1 on the jury would have been impermissible, for the juror had plainly prejudged any such issue in the prosecution’s favor. In fact, however, the defense never impugned Ms. Bresee’s probity, and defense counsel explicitly denied in open court that Ms. Bresee’s conduct was at issue.
Juror No. l’s statement of concern relating to Ms. Bresee left unanswered the question whether he could be impartial if Ms. Bresee’s integrity was not being challenged. My colleagues in the majority appear to concede that this question had not been conclusively resolved, for they criticize the trial judge for not looking into the matter further. Specifically, they argue that the “suspicion of prejudice” which the juror’s remarks had created “should have prompted the trial court, at a minimum, to reopen the voir dire to determine whether actual bias existed.” My colleagues go on to find error because the judge “made no effort to question Juror No. 1 after defense counsel moved on the second day of trial to strike him for cause,” and because he “did not ask to review Juror No. l’s response[s] to questions posed during the voir dire.”
It is here that I must part company with the majority. After Juror No. 1 conscientiously reported his concerns to the court, the judge asked the attorneys if they wished to question the juror. Hughes’ counsel thus had the opportunity to ask any legitimate question that he wished to ask. If counsel preferred not to interrogate a member of the jury, he could have requested the judge to do so. This option was open to him both on the Friday, when the juror reported his concerns, and on the following Monday, when counsel presented his challenge for cause. Nevertheless, perhaps for tactical reasons,1 Hughes’ attorney declined to avail himself of the opportunity. Under these circumstances, Hughes cannot be heard to complain, for the first time on appeal, that the judge did not propound questions to the juror. See In re A.R., 679 A.2d 470, 477-78 & n. 11 (D.C.1996), and authorities there cited.
*1213III.
A finding by the trial judge that a juror is impartial may be set aside only where his or her prejudice is “manifest.” Irvin v. Dowd, 866 U.S. 717, 723-24, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642-44, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961); Wilburn v. United States, 340 A.2d 810, 812 (D.C.1975). My colleagues apparently accept this proposition. See maj. op. at 1210. At the same time, they also appear to acknowledge that there was no “manifest” showing of prejudice on the part of Juror No. 1.
The majority’s view that the judge was obliged to question Juror No. 1 further necessarily presupposes that on the record before the trial court, the issue of partiality remained open. If additional interrogation about the juror’s impartiality (or lack thereof) was required, then the decision whether he should be removed for cause turned on his answers to the questions that the judge ought to have asked him. No purpose would be served by questioning a juror whose bias is “manifest.”
In any event, the trial judge is accorded broad discretion in determining whether to excuse a juror for cause. Wilburn, supra, 340 A.2d at 812. “Our review is deferential because the question of prejudice turns substantially on the juror’s demeanor ..., and is therefore one about which the trial judge is especially qualified to render a sound opinion.” Leeper v. United States, 579 A.2d 695, 698 (D.C.1990) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Darab v. United States, 623 A.2d 127, 138 n. 26 (D.C.1993); Harris v. United States, 606 A.2d 763, 765 (D.C.1992). “This court, on the other hand, is limited to a paper record which may capture the words of a case but not its heart and soul.” In re S.G., 581 A.2d 771, 774 (D.C.1990). The words of Judge Jerome Frank, writing for a particularly distinguished court,2 are especially a propos in this context:
[T]he demeanor of an orally-testifying witness is always assumed to be in evidence. It is wordless language. The liar’s story may seem uncontradicted to one who merely reads it, yet it may be contradicted in the trial court by his manner, his intonations, his grimaces, his gestures, and the like — all matters which cold print does not preserve and which constitute lost evidence so far as an upper court is concerned. For such a court, it has been said, even if it were called a rehearing court, is not a reseeing court. Only were we to have talking movies of trials could it be otherwise. A stenographic transcript correct in every detail fails to reproduce tones of voice and hesitations of speech that often make a sentence mean the reverse of what the words signify. The best and most accurate record is like a dehydrated peach; it has neither the substance nor the flavor of the fruit before it was dried. It resembles a pressed flower. The witness’ demeanor, not apparent in the record, may alone have impeached him.
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Havana Madrid Restaurant, 175 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir.1949) (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Stewart v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Serv., 606 A.2d 1350, 1353 n.5 (D.C.1992) (quoting Broadcast Music, Inc.).
Just as a cold transcript may make a liar come across as a paragon of veracity, so the “dehydrated peach” which represents our sole knowledge of Juror No. 1 may distort much that was quite evident to a trial judge who was on the scene and could appraise the situation first hand.
I agree with the majorify — any reasonable person would — that Juror No. l’s comments necessarily gave rise to a suspicion that he might not be impartial. At the same time, there is much in the record (including, e.g., the defense attorney’s decision to “pass” on his peremptory challenges instead of “striking” Juror No. 1, and counsel’s apparent satisfaction with the juror even after the latter’s announcement that his heart was “skipping a little bit here”) to suggest that all concerned viewed Juror No. 1 as a conscientious and candid individual who could be relied upon to render a fair verdict based upon the evidence and the judge’s instructions as to the law.
*1214The trial judge — in this case, one of the Superior Court’s most experienced jurists— was obviously aware of the problem. His assessment of Juror No. 1 was based on his personal observation of the juror. We ought to be most reluctant to second-guess the judge who was on the scene when our view is constricted by our lofty appellate perch. I would affirm the judgment.

. The record does not disclose why Hughes’ attorney failed to question the juror, or to ask the judge to do so, at the time he presented his challenge for cause. There was, however, a perfectly reasonable tactical reason for declining the judge’s invitation. If Juror No. 1 had been asked whether he could be fair and impartial with Ms. Bresee’s integrity out of the case, and if he had answered in the affirmative, the challenge for cause would almost certainly have failed.

. The other members of the court were Judge Learned Hand and Judge Augustus Hand.