Commonwealth v. Terrance Montgomery, 249 N.E.3d 1

Terrance Montgomery was convicted of murder in the second degree for the shooting of Paul Finegan at a family birthday party in Springfield, Massachusetts.
The case’s key evidence at trial was eyewitness testimony; there was no forensic evidence (DNA or fingerprints) linking Montgomery to the crime.
During attorney-led voir dire, the prosecutor asked potential jurors if they could convict based solely on eyewitness testimony without forensic evidence. Twelve jurors expressing skepticism were excused for cause; Montgomery’s counsel did not object.
Montgomery moved for a new trial, arguing this voir dire question improperly excluded jurors skeptical of eyewitness testimony and primed seated jurors to convict, violating his right to an impartial jury.
The trial judge denied the new trial, concluding the error did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Appeals Court affirmed, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review limited to the voir dire issue.

Issue	Montgomery's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Impropriety of prosecutor's voir dire question about convicting without forensics	Question improperly excluded skeptical jurors and biased the jury	Question within judge’s discretion; ensures jurors don’t require forensic evidence	Question was improper, but error did not warrant new trial due to overwhelming evidence
Effect on impartiality of jury	Voir dire “primed” jurors to convict based on type of evidence presented	Jurors were still subject to fair and impartiality questions and instructions	No substantial risk of miscarriage of justice; seated jurors found impartial
Defendant’s right to a fair trial under Sixth & Fourteenth Amendments	Improper voir dire violated constitutional right to impartial jury	Voir dire error, if any, harmless given strength of case and jury instructions	No constitutional violation warranting reversal or new trial
Prescribing a standard for 'CSI effect' voir dire questions	Court should ban or closely regulate such questions	Judges need discretion to address juror bias as appropriate	Declined to prohibit or standardize; reaffirmed such questions must be phrased with care

Commonwealth v. Gray, 465 Mass. 330 (2013) (trial judge’s discretion in voir dire; improper to commit jurors to verdict in advance)
Commonwealth v. Perez, 460 Mass. 683 (2011) (discussion of "CSI effect" questions; juror expectations for forensic evidence)
Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472 (1980) (defense may comment on absence of forensic investigation)
Commonwealth v. Dabney, 478 Mass. 839 (2018) (statutory right to attorney-conducted voir dire; judge's discretion)
Commonwealth v. Lopes, 440 Mass. 731 (2004) (deference to trial judge’s determination of juror impartiality)
Commonwealth v. Amirault, 424 Mass. 618 (1997) (review and deference to judge’s assessment in new trial motions)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 481 Mass. 443 (2019) (standard for excusing prospective jurors for cause)