One of the tenets of the criminal justice system is the right to a trial before an impartial and fair jury of one’s peers. As such, if a juror demonstrates a bias, it is unlikely that they will be seated on the jury. If they are and the defendant is subsequently convicted, they may have grounds for arguing their conviction was unjust. In a recent Washington assault case, the court discussed juror bias, ultimately determining that the defendant received a fair trial. If you are accused of an assault offense, it is smart to meet with a Tacoma assault crime defense attorney to develop a strategy for your defense.
Factual and Procedural Setting of the Case
It is alleged that the defendant attacked the victim with a hammer while the victim slept in a friend’s apartment. The defendant was charged with assault in the second degree, with aggravating factors including being armed with a deadly weapon and rapid recidivism. During jury selection, potential jurors were queried about their impartiality, particularly concerning their views on crime and the justice system.
Reportedly, a juror expressed reservations rooted in frustration with crime rates and recidivism, indicating potential struggles with impartiality. Neither party challenged the juror for cause, and the defendant exhausted all peremptory challenges before the juror was seated on the jury. Ultimately, the jury convicted the defendant of assault in the second degree but couldn’t reach a unanimous decision on the aggravating factors. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment followed by community custody, with a victim penalty assessment imposed despite his indigent status. The defendant subsequently appealed.
The Right to an Impartial Jury
The defendant argued that the juror should have been dismissed for cause due to bias demonstrated during voir dire. The court disagreed, however, citing the trial court’s discretion in evaluating juror impartiality. The court explained that although the juror expressed concerns about the justice system’s handling of recidivism, her equivocal responses indicated a willingness to follow the law. The court distinguished previous cases where jurors unequivocally admitted bias, emphasizing that the juror in the subject case demonstrated the ability to make an impartial decision despite reservations.
Further, the court noted the defense counsel’s strategic decision not to challenge the juror for cause, instead leveraging her responses to gauge other jurors’ biases. Regarding the defendant’s assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found the defendant’s counsel acted reasonably in not challenging The juror for cause, given the circumstances and the potential tactical disadvantages. The court did rule in favor of the defendant with regard to the victim penalty assessment, however.
Consult a Knowledgeable Tacoma Attorney
Assault offenses can lead to substantial penalties, but simply because someone is charged with assault does not mean that there is sufficient evidence to convict them. If you are accused of an assault crime, it is wise to consult an attorney about your rights. The knowledgeable Tacoma assault crime defense lawyers of The Law Offices of Smith & White are proficient at handling complicated criminal matters, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can contact us via our form online or by calling us at 253-203-1645 to arrange a meeting.