Court Opinion

ID: 9756769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:53:05.086759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:29.921145
License: Public Domain

ADKINS, J.
Petitioner Edwin Wright was charged with possession of cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and unlawful distribution of cocaine. Wright was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, found guilty on the first two charges, and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. During jury selection, the trial court conducted voir dire by posing a roster of questions to the venire in quick succession, and then permitting jurors to respond only after all questions had been asked. Because this method of voir dire did not effectively ensure a fair and impartial jury, we vacate Wright’s convictions, and remand the case for a new trial.
FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On May 6, 2006, Petitioner Edwin Wright was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and unlawful distribution of cocaine. He was tried before the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on March 28-29, 2007. Before trial, the trial court conducted a voir dire of the fifty-person venire panel. During the voir dire, the venirepersons were asked, as a group, a roster of seventeen questions.
At the end of this collective questioning, each venireperson was called to the bench individually and asked if he or she had any information in response to the voir dire questions. The court then asked the venireperson if he or she could be fair and impartial. At the conclusion of this process, counsel for Wright and for the State moved the trial court to strike a *507number of jurors for cause, based on the information uncovered during the trial court’s questioning. Wright’s counsel objected to this voir dire method, arguing that “the problem is [the jurors’ abilities] to remember all the questions.” The trial court overruled the objection, saying that in the court’s understanding, the chosen method “complie[d] with ... reported cases.” The trial court went on to say that “this is an extremely effective way of accomplishing what is sought to be accomplished in the voir dire process. The jurors do remember the questions.”
Ultimately, Wright was convicted of possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison without parole. Wright appealed on the grounds that the selected voir dire method prevented the empaneling of a fair and impartial jury.1 In an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. While the Court of Special Appeals characterized the challenged voir dire method as “somewhat flawed,” it concluded that the flaws were not so egregious as to constitute an abuse of discretion. We granted certiorari to consider whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in relying on the chosen voir dire method.2
DISCUSSION
There is only one issue in this case: did the trial court’s voir dire method deprive Wright of a fair and impartial jury, as guaranteed to him by both the United States Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights? See U.S. Const, amend. VI; Md. Decl. of Rights art. 21. We evaluate voir dire methodology under an abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., Stewart v. State, 399 Md. 146, 160, 923 A.2d 44, 52 (2007).
*508We begin from the premise that the “overarching purpose of voir dire in a criminal case is to ensure a fair and impartial jury.” Dingle v. State, 361 Md. 1, 9, 759 A.2d 819, 823 (2000). Indeed, the only purpose of voir dire in Maryland is to illuminate to the trial court any cause for juror disqualification. See Stewart, 399 Md. at 158, 923 A.2d at 51. Without a comprehensive and effective voir dire, a trial judge cannot properly winnow the venire to only those jurors who will be able to perform their duties without prejudice. See White v. State, 374 Md. 232, 240, 821 A.2d 459, 463 (2003) (“Without adequate voir dire, the trial judge is unable to fulfill his or her responsibility to eliminate those prospective jurors who will be unable to perform their duty impartially.”).
Within this overall framework, however, the trial court has “broad discretion in the conduct of voir dire....” Dingle, 361 Md. at 13, 759 A.2d at 826. That discretion extends to both the form and the substance of questions posed to the venire. See, e.g., White, 374 Md. at 242-44, 821 A.2d at 465 (holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to pose “compound” voir dire questions to the venire as a whole, followed by extensive individual voir dire); Stewart, 399 Md. at 162, 923 A.2d at 53 (holding that the trial court was not required to ask voir dire questions on a subject merely because the questions were requested by a party). A trial court reaches the limits of its discretion only when the voir dire method employed by the court fails to probe juror biases effectively. See, e.g., White, 374 Md. at 241, 821 A.2d at 464 (holding that “the conclusions of the trial judge are entitled to less deference” if voir dire is “cursory, rushed, and unduly limited”).
In this case, the selected method of voir dire strayed too close to the “cursory” and “unduly limited” techniques that we have proscribed. It is evident from the record that the trial court’s questioning did not properly engage at least some members of the venire panel. For example, the following exchange occurred between the trial judge and Juror 567:
*509THE COURT: Do you have any information to give the Court in response to the questions that I’ve asked?
JUROR 567: No.
THE COURT: Is there any reason you would not be able to reach a fair and impartial verdict in this case—
JUROR 567: No.
THE COURT: — based on the evidence and the law as I instruct you?
* * *
THE COURT: [] But the questions that I asked to the panel as a group, did you hear those questions?
JUROR 567: Yeah, I — some of ‘em.
THE COURT: Okay.
The lack of proper comprehension in this exchange illustrates a systemic problem with the voir dire method used in this case. The presentation of a lengthy roster of questions to the venire, without providing the opportunity to answer each question as it was posed, required each venireperson to comprehend and retain far too much information to guarantee that the questions were answered properly.
In order to understand fully the difficulty associated with the retention of this information, it is worth examining both the full list of the questions posed and the manner in which they were presented to the venire. The trial court’s statement to the venire ran as follows:
THE COURT: As I said, the case before the Court this morning is the State of Maryland v. Edwin Wright. The Defendant, Edwin Wright, in this proceeding has been charged with possession with intent to distribute CDS and possession of CDS on May 6th, 2006 in the 1100 block of Preston Street in Baltimore City, State of Maryland.
Does any member of the panel have any knowledge concerning this case either from hearing, seeing or reading about it in the mass media or from any other source whatsoever?
*510There are various individuals whose names may be mentioned during the course of this trial or who may be called as witnesses. Those persons are Detective Kenneth Ross, Detective Chris Faller, F-a-l-l-e-r, Detective Kyle Johnson, chemist Anthony Rumber, R-u-m-b-e-r, Chemist Angela Ellis and Terry Wilson. Does any member of the panel have any knowledge of the individuals whose names I have just mentioned?
Does any member of the panel know or have any relationship or knowledge of the Defendant, Mr. Edwin [Wright]?
Does anyone know or have any relationship whatsoever, past or present, with Mr. Wright’s counsel, Sharon A.H. May?
Does anyone know or have any relationship, past or present, with the Assistant State’s Attorney in this matter, Rita Wisthoff-Ito?
This question is in three parts and it concerns both you and members of your immediate family. And by immediate family, I mean your parents, children, brothers, or sisters, spouse. I do not mean cousins, nephews, in-laws or other individuals unless they reside with you.
Has any member of the panel or any member of your immediate family ever been convicted — ever been the victim of a crime?
Has any member of the panel or any member of your immediate family ever been convicted of a crime?
Has any member of the panel or has any member of your immediate family ever been incarcerated in a jail or penal institution within the last five years?
Has any member of the panel or any member of your immediate family have any pending cases?
*511Has any member of the panel or any member of your immediate family had any other experience with the criminal justice system which would or might affect your ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror in this case?
Does any member of the panel have any religious, moral or other beliefs which would interfere with your ability to render a fair and impartial verdict in this case based on the evidence and the law as I instruct you?
The accused in this case is African-American. Does any member of the panel feel that he or she is unable to reach a fair and impartial verdict simply because the accused is African-American?
Does any member of the panel have such strong feelings concerning controlled dangerous substances, that is CDS, that you would be unable to render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence and the law as I instruct you?
Is there any member of the jury panel friendly with, associated with, or related to anyone in the Baltimore City Police Department, the State’s Attorney’s Office, the Maryland Division of Corrections, or any city or county correctional facility or agency, the Federal Bureau of Prisons or any other law enforcement agency?
There may be testimony in this case from one or more Baltimore City police officers. Would you give more weight or less weight to the testimony of a police officer versus a law witness merely because he or she is a police officer?
This trial is expected to last two days, that is, today and some period of time tomorrow. Is there any compelling reason why you would be unable to serve as a juror in this case for that reason, bearing in mind that the Court has very limited authority to excuse you for such a reason?
Is there any other reason whatsoever that you could not render a fair and impartial verdict in this case based on the evidence and the law as I instruct you?
The sheer bulk of the voir dire questions helps illustrate the difficulty of the task required of the venire. The form of the presentation further compounded that difficulty: the voir dire *512comprised five and a half minutes of continuous questioning, without pause, after which each venireperson was called to the bench one at a time. This process resulted in substantial delay between presentation of the questions and the answers. Of the twelve jury members ultimately seated, four approached the bench more than thirty minutes after the voir dire questions had been read; the last of these approached more than fifty minutes after the reading.
While we have every confidence in our jurors’ abilities to respond intelligently and effectively to inquiries posed during voir dire, we are also duty-bound to eliminate any doubt or error in the process, inasmuch as is possible. We have previously stated, in another context, that information presented in the courtroom is most accessible when divided into small, discrete segments. See Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289, 350, 893 A.2d 1018, 1054 n. 23 (2006) (holding that it was best to “present [information on a defendant’s rights during sentencing] ... in smaller intellectual ‘bytes’ and inquire discretely after each ‘byte’ ... whether a defendant understands [the information].”). That same principle governs this case.
To be sure, as the State emphasizes, voir dire procedures lie “within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Bedford v. State, 317 Md. 659, 670, 566 A.2d 111, 116-17 (1989). Paramount, however, is the trial court’s obligation to exercise this discretion to “reasonably ... test the jury for bias, partiality, or prejudice.” Stewart, 399 Md. at 160, 923 A.2d at 52. Our duty, moreover, is not fulfilled by rote deference to the trial court’s decision based on the numerous cases in which we have held that a voir dire was properly within a trial court’s discretion.
The State makes a logically flawed argument by asserting that the voir dire here must have served its purpose well because twenty-six members of the fifty-person panel were struck for cause. The proper inquiry is not how many jurors were struck, but how many jurors should have been struck. As we recognized in Dingle, it is irrelevant how many venirepersons are excused as a result of an improper voir dire — if *513the parties are denied the opportunity to challenge “even one person[ ] who might have been subject to discharge because of the information generated, the many who were excused will matter not one whit.” 361 Md. at 4, 759 A.2d at 821 n. 5 (holding as improper a voir dire requiring jurors to respond to a compound question only if both parts of an answer were affirmative).
The Court of Special Appeals distinguished Dingle by holding that, in this case, the trial court was “acutely aware of, and active in, the process of assessing juror bias and prejudice.” While that may very well be true, the trial court’s level of engagement in voir dire is a separate issue from the one presented here. The trial court is limited in its effectiveness by the juror information to which it has access. Here, the selected voir dire method may have obscured relevant information from the trial court’s view by failing to ensure that the jurors on the venire made reasonably full disclosures. The trial court was therefore working with an incomplete understanding of the jury pool. Even the most diligent and inquisitive trial court could not effectively guarantee a fair and impartial jury with such limitations circumscribing its own knowledge.
Nor do we find persuasive the State’s assertion that Wright was not prejudiced by the failure to conduct a proper voir dire. An incomplete voir dire necessarily means an incomplete investigation into potential juror biases, which in turn leads to the very real possibility that the venire members failed to disclose relevant information. That potential failure forecloses further investigation into the venirepersons’ states of mind, and makes proof of prejudice a virtual impossibility. Cf. Williams v. State, 394 Md. 98, 109-14, 904 A.2d 534, 540-43 (2006) (holding that a new trial was warranted where a juror did not properly disclose information during voir dire and there was no possibility of further investigating potential juror bias). Accepting the State’s argument would require Wright to prove a negative-he would have to demonstrate that he was not prejudiced by a non-event (i.e., a failure to disclose *514relevant information). We will not impose that insurmountable burden.
We are not suggesting that asking questions to a venire panel en masse is an inherently flawed procedure. In this case, it is the multiplicity of the questions that is problematic, not the means by which the questions are broadcast. The key to an effective voir dire is allowing venirepersons the meaningful opportunity to digest the individual questions posed to them and to respond fully to each one while the question is at the forefront of their minds.
For example, as is frequently done, the trial court may address a question to the venire as a whole, and then allow the panel members to respond to that individual question through a show of hands before moving on to the next one. The trial judge or the court clerk could make notes of which juror responded affirmatively to each question, and after all questions are completed, call those jurors who made an affirmative response to the bench for further inquiry. This process takes only moments longer than the procedure followed in this case. Alternately, a trial court could distribute a written list of questions to the venire prior to voir dire, and allow jurors the opportunity to note their answers as each question is asked. If this were done, jurors would have a reliable method of refreshing their memories about answers to the voir dire questions. These two methods, and no doubt several others, would ensure that voir dire serves its purpose without unduly impairing the laudable goal of judicial efficiency.
Voir dire is not a foolproof process, and we do not require perfection in its exercise. We do require a comprehensive, systematic inquiry that is reasonably calculated, in both form and substance, to elicit all relevant information from prospective jurors. The method under scrutiny here did not achieve that goal. Some, perhaps many, jurors may find that digesting, recalling, and answering seventeen consecutive voir dire questions is a manageable, even easy task. Perhaps this is true even when those jurors are not given external aid in recalling the questions, and are made to wait a significant *515length of time before being called on to provide their answers. If we assume that these individuals are the norm, however, we run the risk of injecting yet another element of uncertainty into an already delicate process. All else being equal, it is better that we should use an overabundance of caution, and assume that the judicial system as a whole is better served by a more careful process. “Certainly, that is not too high a price to pay to give meaning to a right guaranteed by our Constitution.” Davis v. State, 333 Md. 27, 69, 633 A.2d 867, 888 (1993) (Bell, J., dissenting).
We hold that, by employing the challenged method of voir dire, the trial court traveled beyond the limits of its discretion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remand to that Court, with directions to vacate Wright’s convictions and remand for a new trial.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED. CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS WITH DIRECTIONS TO VACATE PETITIONER’S CONVICTIONS AND TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY FOR A NEW TRIAL. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY BALTIMORE CITY.

. Wright also appealed the trial court’s decision to restrict a defense witness’s testimony after initially ruling the testimony admissible. That issue is not before this Court.

. We have restated the question presented to illustrate better the problems presented by this case.