Legal News

Judge Says: There Shall be Hygiene in the Court!

By Dan Slater

On Friday, we addressed the propriety of citing obesity as the reason for dismissing a juror. Today, let’s turn to body odor. (That’s right, body odor.)

In the murder trial of Commonwealth v. Young, Mass. Superior Court Judge Nancy Staffier-Holtz dismissed a female juror. And this was her explanation:

I just want the record to reflect, I guess, to be blunt, [the juror], for whatever reason, had some very bad, I guess to be blunt again, body odor, which was extremely strong, and I was able to detect in my lobby, as was the clerk, which is a personal matter for that potential juror, but for the fact that her personal problem was [of] such a magnitude that other jurors who had already been picked . . . either by act or words had indicated discomfort with that problem.

The judge then addressed the defendant’s objection to the juror’s removal: “[M]y concern is not her background . . . given the strength of the body odor, I’m satisfied that the other jurors would be put at a distinct disadvantage in their efforts to concentrate.” (Here’s a report from Legal Blog Watch.)

Was the move reversible error? It seems not. On appeal, post-conviction, the appellate court held:

The defendant claims furthermore that the dismissal of the juror was improper because she was of the same race as the defendant, apparently arguing that the dismissal affected the racial composition of the jury. There is nothing in the record that shows the ethnic or racial composition of the jury. The record does show that the judge noted on the second day of empanelment that “we have a pretty decent pool here today, just even in terms of ethnic, racial mix.” We note that after the jury were empaneled, the defendant did not make any challenge to the composition of the jury. . . . We hold that the judge’s dismissal of the juror was not an abuse of her discretion.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on January 13, 2009 (boomark / email).