State v. Logan

Decision Date04 August 1995
Docket NumberNo. C3-94-178,C3-94-178
PartiesSTATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Benjamin Matthew LOGAN, Appellant.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

Trial court's failure to excuse juror who candidly admitted on voir dire that he would give credence to testimony of police officers over testimony of other witnesses deprived defendant of a fair trial by an impartial jury.

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Marie L. Wolf, Asst. State Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Atty., Mark V. Griffin, Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

COYNE, Justice.

Defendant, Benjamin Matthew Logan, appeals from judgment of conviction of two counts of first-degree murder in the killing of two clerks during an armed robbery of a Minneapolis gun store on the evening of June 23, 1992. The decisive issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying a defense challenge for cause of one of the jurors, who candidly said he would be more inclined to believe the testimony of police officers than of other witnesses. If the trial court erred in allowing this juror to serve, then defendant was deprived of a fair trial by an impartial jury of 12 people and he is entitled to a new trial. Concluding that the trial court erred and that defendant was denied a fair trial by an impartial jury, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.

In answering questions in the preliminary jury questionnaire, prospective juror K.G. said that he would favor the testimony of police officers over the testimony of other witnesses, that it was "their job to bring forth sound evidence." He also said that he believed that there had been an increase in violent crime that must be dealt with and that he was certain this feeling would carry "some weight" with him in deciding defendant's guilt, although he would "try" to put it aside.

Asked at voir dire by the judge to "expand on that a little bit," K.G. said that in his view police officers are "in the law and order business" and he had "never really had the situation where [he] had to feel they didn't do their job." He said that "their testimony--that's their day-in, day-out task. They should know what to do in the instances that are presented to them." Asked if they might be mistaken, K.G. said, "Sure." Asked if he would blindly accept their testimony, K.G. said, "No, I wouldn't accept blindly, but I certainly--I value them." Asked if he would apply the same standard for determining their credibility as he would apply to the testimony of "a lay person," K.G. said, "I probably would, yeah." After asking K.G. about his concern over an increase in violent crime, the judge asked if he could sit on a jury and decide the case on the evidence and according to the trial court's instructions, notwithstanding his feelings about violent crime. K.G. replied, "I am sure it would have some weight. I just don't know how much." Asked if he would put that aside, he replied, "I would try to, yes." Asked again, he said, "I certainly could try, yes."

Defense counsel asked K.G. about his friendship with a Minneapolis police detective and how he would feel next time he saw the detective if in the interim he had sat as a juror and found defendant not guilty of a double homicide. K.G. replied, "I guess I would feel disappointment." But he said he did not think he would owe the detective an explanation. The following exchange then occurred concerning K.G.'s view of police officers and their credibility.

Q Is it fair to say that you have got a rather positive view of law enforcement?

A Yes. They have always treated me fairly.

Q When do you think you first formulated that positive view?

A It's probably a long time ago.

Q Most of your life?

A Most of my life. I have always felt good about it.

Q Okay. On your questionnaire, you indicated you would favor the testimony of a police officer as opposed to a lay witness by virtue of--do you remember filling that out?

A Mm hmm.

Q That is by virtue of the fact that they're police officers, right?

A Mm hmm.

Q So is it fair to say that you would, because of this long-held feeling, positive feeling you have about police officers, you are more inclined to believe what they tell you from the witness stand than what other people tell you, right?

A I think so, yes.

Q Okay. And this is a feeling that you have had for a long time and strongly have it?

A I guess I didn't know I had it, but--

Q Okay. You told the Judge that you thought that police officers sometimes made mistakes, right?

A Mm hmm, I'm sure everybody does.

Q Do you think they make mistakes less often than other people?

A I have no idea.

Q Okay. Do you think they lie under oath?

A I don't think so.

Q That's inconsistent with, as you described, their job is to bring forth sound evidence?

A Mm hmm.

Q Right?

A Mm hmm.

Q So you would agree with me that police officers, unlike other witnesses, always testify truthfully?

A You know, I don't know. I can't speak for them, but you know, I will hope so.

Q You would be real hard-pressed during the course of this trial to make a conclusion in your mind that a police officer knowingly testified untruthfully?

A Right, I just--I would not feel that he would or she would, whoever is involved with it.

Q Is it--

A It wouldn't be my understanding or--or concern that they would.

Q Would it be fair to say it would be virtually impossible for you to conclude as a juror that a police officer had testified falsely in this case?

A Yes. I think.

Defense counsel then approached the bench and sought to have K.G. removed for cause.

The prosecutor, Fred Karasov, asked for and obtained permission to try to rehabilitate K.G., getting K.G. to admit that it was not inconceivable that some police officer might lie. The prosecutor then asked K.G. a series of leading questions, the answers to which indicated that K.G. would follow the instructions of the court to the best of his ability--that he thought he could be fair.

The following exchange between defense counsel and K.G. then occurred:

Q * * * [P]erhaps you can alleviate some of the confusion I'm now suffering. Because as I understood you, first you said you would favor the testimony of police officers. And then you said--that you told me that due to your positive impression you have of police, it was virtually impossible for you to conclude that a police officer had lied about anything under oath.

And then you told Mr. Karasov that you could--police officers lied just like anybody else and could lie under oath. And you would hold all witnesses to the same standard of judging credibility and wouldn't favor a police officer's testimony just because they're a police officer. Could you clear that up for me, please?

A Well, I think it was in the series of the way the questions were asked. But, you know, I just, you know, my belief is that, you know, based on the question that was presented in the questionnaire, about police officers, if I hold them in high regard. I mean, I'm not to the point of saying that I would take their testimony or what they say as the number one priority, but I happen to respect their work and what they do.

And, you know, I answered the question as best I could on that because I do feel that I'm going to favor in some way, shape or form what they do because that's how I feel. That's just how I feel. Although, when asked--I would certainly be objective, you know, as best I could.

When defense counsel asked K.G. if in this case he would be more likely to believe the testimony of a police officer over that of defendant, the prosecutor objected and the trial court sustained the objection. The trial court also sustained an objection by the prosecutor to a rephrased question which asked K.G. whether he would be prone to resolve any evidentiary conflict in the case in favor of the police. Asked which he considered the greater travesty of justice, convicting an innocent person or acquitting a guilty person, K.G. replied, "Probably acquitting a guilty one." The trial court then sustained a prosecutor's objection when defense counsel asked K.G. whether, if there was doubt in his mind as to guilt or innocence in this case, he would err on the side of guilt.

Defense counsel repeated his challenge for cause, and the trial court denied the challenge for cause.

Defendant's attorney had already used all of the allowed peremptory challenges. With the illness of one juror and the failure of another to appear, K.G. became a member of the jury which evaluated the conflicting testimony of a Minneapolis police officer and of defendant as to what defendant said during an unrecorded interrogation.

The jury began deliberations late on the afternoon of November 9, 1993. Its deliberations continued on November 10, 11, 12 and 13 before it reached a verdict on the afternoon of November 13.

Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.02, subdivision 5 provides, in relevant part, that a juror may be challenged for cause on a number of grounds, including:

1. The existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror, in reference to the case or to either party, which satisfies the court that the juror cannot try the case impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging.

If a prospective juror during voir dire admits to this "state of mind" described in the rule, then the juror should be excused, unless, of course, the prospective juror is "rehabilitated." 2 Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 21.3(c) at 729-30 (1984). Typically rehabilitation takes the form of the prospective juror stating unequivocally that he/she will follow the trial court's instructions and will fairly evaluate the evidence. Moreover, most judges, when faced with such an unequivocal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
79 cases
  • Colbert v. State
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 21 Octubre 2015
  • State v. Munt
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 31 Mayo 2013
    ...enforcement personnel and stated: “ ‘I guess to be honest, I would be more inclined to believe [police officers]’ ”); State v. Logan, 535 N.W.2d 320, 322–23 (Minn.1995)(involving a prospective juror answering that it would be “ ‘virtually impossible for [him] to conclude as a juror that a p......
  • State v. Reiners, C7-01-1001.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 10 Julio 2003
    ... ...         We have also considered the appropriate remedy where a district court's refusal to dismiss a prospective juror for cause was deemed erroneous on review. See State v. Logan, 535 N.W.2d 320 (Minn.1995) ... In Logan, we reversed and remanded the defendant's conviction, stating that "if the members of a petit jury are selected on improper criteria * * *, the error has undermined the basic `structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itself, and is not amenable to ... ...
  • Thompson v. Ludeman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 11 Enero 2012
    ... ...          Plaintiff ... has commenced this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, ... against various state employees for violations of his ... constitutional rights. The Defendants include the following: ... • Cal R. Ludeman, the Commissioner ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT