Analyzing the Case of Commonwealth v. Terrance Montgomery (SJC-13594)
The case of Commonwealth v. Terrance Montgomery presented critical issues surrounding jury voir dire, the reliance on eyewitness testimony, and the limits of forensic evidence in criminal trials. This blog post delves into the case's background, the legal arguments raised, the court's analysis, and the broader implications for criminal law and justice.
Case Background
In 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts reviewed Commonwealth v. Terrance Montgomery, a case involving the second-degree murder conviction of Terrance Montgomery for the killing of Paul Finegan. Montgomery's conviction stemmed from a fatal shooting at a backyard party in Springfield, Massachusetts, on May 5, 2018. The jury trial, held in 2018, resulted in a life sentence with parole eligibility after 25 years.
Montgomery’s appeal focused on a specific aspect of jury selection during voir dire, where the prosecutor asked prospective jurors whether they could convict based on eyewitness testimony without forensic evidence such as DNA or fingerprints. Montgomery argued that this questioning unfairly biased the jury and violated his constitutional rights.
Key Facts of the Case
The Incident
The shooting occurred at a crowded backyard birthday party. Montgomery, arriving shortly after the party started, encountered the victim, Finegan, who insulted him. The two argued before Montgomery shot Finegan in the head with a .40 caliber handgun. The victim was unarmed, and Montgomery fled the scene immediately after the shooting.
The Investigation and Trial
The evidence against Montgomery relied primarily on eyewitness accounts. While some witnesses testified seeing the argument and shooting, others’ testimonies were impeached based on alleged inconsistencies, cooperation agreements, or pressure from law enforcement. The defense argued that these factors undermined the reliability of the testimony.
No forensic evidence—such as DNA, fingerprints, or ballistics linking Montgomery to the weapon—was presented at trial. Montgomery’s defense emphasized this absence, raising doubts about the adequacy of the investigation.
The Legal Issue: Voir Dire Questioning
The Prosecutor's Question
During voir dire, the prosecutor asked potential jurors variations of whether they could convict someone based solely on eyewitness testimony without forensic evidence. Twelve jurors who expressed doubts were excused for cause. The seated jurors affirmed they could convict if they found the eyewitness testimony compelling.
Montgomery’s defense argued that:
The voir dire question improperly "primed" jurors to accept eyewitness testimony.
It systematically excluded jurors skeptical of such evidence, creating a jury predisposed to conviction.
The question undermined the defense’s argument regarding the absence of forensic evidence.
The defense claimed these issues deprived Montgomery of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and requested a new trial.
SJC’s Analysis
The SJC affirmed Montgomery’s conviction but agreed that the voir dire question was improper. The court’s decision turned on the following considerations:
Impropriety of the Question
The court held that the prosecutor’s question was flawed because it sought to:
Commit jurors to convicting based on specific evidence (eyewitness testimony) before hearing the trial.
Frame the hypothetical in a manner closely mirroring the facts of the case, undermining jurors’ impartiality.
These issues contravened Massachusetts law and court precedents requiring voir dire to assess jurors’ impartiality without pre-committing them to verdicts.
Standard of Review
Since defense counsel failed to object during trial, the SJC applied the "substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice" standard. Under this standard, the court considered whether the error might have influenced the trial’s outcome.
Strength of the Evidence
The SJC emphasized that the evidence against Montgomery was "overwhelming." Multiple eyewitnesses testified to seeing the shooting, and the shell casing recovered at the scene corroborated the type of weapon described by witnesses. While the defense highlighted inconsistencies and credibility issues, the jury’s verdict suggested they found the eyewitnesses’ accounts convincing.
Prejudice from the Question
The court acknowledged the potential for prejudice but noted safeguards in place, such as:
Jury instructions emphasizing the Commonwealth’s burden of proof.
Guidance on evaluating eyewitness testimony under Commonwealth v. Gomes.
The SJC concluded that any bias introduced by the voir dire question did not outweigh the strong evidence of guilt.
Broader Legal Implications
Eyewitness Testimony and the "CSI Effect"
This case underscores the tension between reliance on eyewitness testimony and jurors’ expectations for forensic evidence, often referred to as the "CSI effect." While courts allow voir dire questions addressing potential biases about forensic evidence, the SJC reaffirmed that such questions must be narrowly tailored and neutral.
Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire
The case highlights the risks of improperly phrased voir dire questions during attorney-led jury selection. Massachusetts Superior Court Rule 6 bars questions that commit jurors to a result or closely mirror case facts. This decision reinforces the importance of trial judges actively overseeing voir dire to ensure fairness.
Preserving Errors for Appeal
Montgomery’s case demonstrates the importance of timely objections during trial. The defense’s failure to object to the voir dire question limited the appellate court’s ability to review the issue and likely contributed to the court’s decision to affirm the conviction.
Conclusion
The SJC’s decision in Commonwealth v. Terrance Montgomery reaffirms key principles of jury selection and trial fairness while emphasizing the high bar for overturning convictions based on unpreserved errors. Although the voir dire question was improper, the court found no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice given the strong evidence of guilt.
This case serves as a reminder for practitioners to:
Object to potentially prejudicial voir dire questions.
Ensure voir dire inquiries comply with established legal standards.
Be mindful of the balance between addressing juror biases and preserving impartiality.
In the ever-evolving landscape of criminal justice, cases like Montgomery highlight the critical role of jury selection in ensuring fair trials and just outcomes.