Andrew Simon Manzano, a/k/a Andrew Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia
0936161
| Va. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Andrew Manzano was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk of possession of an imitation controlled substance with intent to sell, give, or distribute; sentence: 18 months imprisonment.
- During voir dire, the defense asked the venire whether they would give police testimony more weight than ordinary witnesses; seven prospective jurors answered affirmatively.
- Three of those seven were struck for cause by the trial court, two were removed by the defense’s peremptory strikes, and two served on the jury; Manzano appealed the denial of motions to strike three specific venirepersons for cause (Sherman, Renn, Greenspan).
- Manzano argued each of the three expressed a fixed bias favoring police testimony such that they could not be impartial, and that the Commonwealth’s rehabilitation was inadequate.
- The trial court found each prospective juror’s full voir dire responses showed willingness and ability to follow the judge’s instructions and assess witness credibility individually; the Court of Appeals reviewed for manifest error and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Manzano's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venirepersons who say they would give police testimony more weight must be struck for cause | The jurors’ statements reflect a preconceived preference for police testimony preventing impartiality | Each juror’s full voir dire showed they could set aside prior beliefs, follow instructions, and judge credibility individually | Court affirmed: no manifest error; jurors were qualified |
| Whether the trial court’s rehabilitation of these jurors was adequate | Rehabilitation was insufficient; strikes for cause required | Rehabilitation (follow-up questioning, jurors’ assurances) demonstrated impartiality | Affirmed: follow-up questioning was sufficient |
| Standard of review for denying challenges for cause | N/A (appellant challenges application) | Trial court’s determinations get deference; manifest error required to overturn | Applied deferential review; no manifest error found |
| Whether general respect for police (based on experience) equals disqualifying bias | Statements of general deference amount to fixed bias | Distinction between general respect/experience and inability to be impartial; must consider whole voir dire | Court held general deference alone is not disqualifying if juror can follow instructions and judge witnesses on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 239 Va. 243 (affirming refusal to strike juror who expressed that police testimony may carry more weight but would be neutral)
- Waye v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 683 (trial court discretion in juror qualification; neutrality standard)
- Simmons v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 69 (voir dire review; trial court best situated to assess juror demeanor)
- Jackson v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 178 (manifest error standard for denying challenges for cause)
- DeLeon v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 409 (defendant entitled to a panel free from cause exceptions before peremptory challenges)
- Stewart v. Commonwealth, 245 Va. 222 (prior positive view of police not per se disqualifying)