Could you be a fair juror in a gun-murder case?
Because a judge didn?t ask that question, the state?s second-highest court has overturned the murder conviction of a 22-year-old Baltimore City man, granting him a new trial.
“Everyone dislikes crime, but a gun murder engenders high feelings,” said Brian Murphy, attorney for Harold Singfield Jr., whose conviction was overturned Friday by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.
“As a judge, you have to ask a direct question. If you?re predisposed to find the guy guilty because you dislike what he?s charged with, then you shouldn?t be on the jury.”
Singfield was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2005 for second-degree murder and gun violations.
Before the trial began, Singfield?s public defender attempted to persuade retired Baltimore City Circuit Judge David Mitchell to ask jurors if they were biased in cases involving gun murders, according to the appellate court?s ruling.
The judge refused to do so, saying that jurors had been advised of the charges against Singfield.
The jurors also had been asked whether they or their family members had been victims of a weapons crime or accused of a weapons crime, Mitchell said.
But those questions alone are not good enough to root out potential bias in a jury, wrote Judge James P. Salmon in the Court of Special Appeals? opinion.
“When the trial court described the nature of the case, it failed to inform the jurors that the murder was committed with a handgun or any kind of weapon,” Salmon wrote.
The jurors “were thus never asked, even in light of the court?s repeated questions designed to uncover potential biases, to consider whether their beliefs concerning the use of a handgun in the commission of a murder would prevent them from rendering a fair and impartial verdict,” Salmon wrote.
Murphy said he wasn?t sure whether Singfield would remain in a state prison or be transferred to the city detention center while awaiting a new trial.
