Christopher Peak Photo
Willie Dow leaves court, after the first day of jury selection in Rabbi Daniel Greer’s criminal case.
It took nearly three hours to find the first juror who committed to impartially deciding the case of whether Rabbi Daniel Greer sexually assaulted a former teenager student over several years.
College classes, friends’ weddings, family responsibilities and just plain disgust with the idea of child molestation blocked one person after another from claiming a spot in the jury box for Greer’s criminal trial next month, as juror selection began Monday in his case.
Greer is facing charges of sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor, to which he pleaded not guilty.
After roughly four hours of questioning Monday at the 235 Church St. courthouse, Superior Court Judge Jon Alander had sent 17 prospective jurors out through the swinging doors of the fourth-floor courtroom’s well. That left only two jurors who said they could fairly evaluate the evidence; both won the attorneys’ approval too.
Jury selection will continue on Tuesday and could drag on later into the week, until the parties can find six jurors and two alternates for what’s expected to be up to a nine-day trial beginning on Sept. 17.
Three Men Can’t
Rabbi Greer.
The initial batch of jurors were picked in an extensive interview process known as “voir dire.” In it, prospective jurors are given a broad overview of the case as a group, then called in as individuals to speak candidly about how their lived experiences might prejudice them against either side.
At times, it can feel like the jurors themselves are the ones facing charges. They’re seated at the witness stand, and they’re reminded that they’ve taken an oath to “answer truthfully all questions that you are asked.”
But unlike the grillings to come, this process isn’t meant to corner anyone.
The lawyers let prospective jurors speak in complete sentences, rather than the yes-or-no responses they demand from witnesses. They seem genuinely interested in understanding how a person’s mind works. They joke around. They don’t want anyone feeling slighted.
As Monday’s “voir dire” showed, it’s a good thing the attorneys go easy. Because when individuals receive a jury summons, they often have no clue what they’re getting into, especially in a case like this.
Right after many described feeling upset by the charges against Greer, they were put on the spot and asked to share who they are, to confront epistemic questions of certainty and doubt, and to dredge up memories that might match any aspect of the alleged crime, including any past contact with the legal system.
Willie Dow, Greer’s defense attorney, had to ask for more details from one man who’d initially asked Judge Alander if a spate of six DUIs back in the early 1990s disqualified him.
“What’s your situation now?” Dow asked.
“Do I still drink?” the man clarified. “Yeah.”
“Not to excess?” Dow asked. The man hesitated. Dow tried again. “Or you don’t do that and drive?”
“Sure,” the man said.
“I’m not trying to trap you,” Dow said. “It’s just to find out the information.”
“I’ve been on the wrong end of a lot of these situations,” the man said. “I’m uncomfortable.”
Monday’s questions got especially touchy as prospective jurors were asked about their experiences trusting religious authorities, law enforcement and rape victims.
For instance, that same man who’d been caught drinking and driving said he couldn’t apply the presumption of innocence to Greer. He said he’d have trouble discounting an accuser’s testimony.
“I think that would take a lot to lie,” he said, adding that he “might start” by automatically believing the accuser.
“We have a presumption of innocence, unless and until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” Judge Alander said.
“That’s not where I would start,” he said.
“You have to,” Judge Alander added. “Some people can’t, but you need to until the state can prove guilt.”
“I’d have a hard time,” he said.
Alander excused him.
“Drive safely,” Dow said.
A retired terminal operator from Magellan Midstream Partners, an oil storage and transportation company with a base on the New Haven Harbor, said he didn’t think he could hear out any adult accused of having sex with someone under 16 years old.
“A child?” he asked. “I have a problem with that.”
“It’s okay to be against child sex abuse,” Judge Alander clarified. “The question is do you feel so strongly about it that you couldn’t be fair, that the mere allegation means you’d hold it against him? Do you have a doubt in your mind you could be fair?”
“Yes,” the man said.
The assistant manager of a Stop & Shop, too, said he’d have a hard time knowing the accusations had been leveled against a man of the cloth. He said he’d seen so many news stories about priests who’d been accused of molestation.
“Is it more likely religious people who do this?” Dow asked.
“That’s the way it is in the media,” he said. “It leaves that impression in people.”
“Do you think that would influence you?” Judge Alander added. “You would have to assure us. I know you’re dealing with this for the first time. But we can’t take the chance that you won’t let it influence you.”
“I probably can’t do 100 percent,” he said.
Two Women Can
After the round of interviews, only two women said they’d be able to remain impartial heading into the trial.
The first juror is a scheduler for Yale-New Haven Hospital who’s in charge of assigning and paying nurses across the system’s campuses. A divorced mother of two, she lives in the Edgewood neighborhood near Greer’s Norton Street boarding school.
She said she’d had a good and bad experiences with law enforcement, thanking a cop who’d treated her kindly while writing a speeding ticket and “exchanging words” with one who’d pulled her over for barely making a yellow light.
She said she’d had a niece who was sexually assaulted, but she said no one was arrested because “there wasn’t enough proof, nothing was destroyed.”
She called the charges against Greer “shocking,” but she said she’d “always” keep an open mind.
“Do you want to sit on this jury?” Dow asked.
“No, I’d rather be at work,” she said. “But if I’m told to come, I will be here.”
The second juror is a nail-salon owner who lives in Wallingford. A married mother of four, she said she watches Law & Order at night to go to sleep. She added she “absolutely” knows it’s not an accurate depiction of the legal system’s workings.
She said she instinctively thinks you’re “supposed to” believe police officers, but she said that she wouldn’t let a badge alone influence her.
She said she worried about false rape allegations. She’d told her husband, who coached girls’ soccer, not to put himself in a situation where anything could be misconstrued.
She also said she’d been there to support a friend who’d been sexually assaulted by a family member and who is deciding whether to go forward with prosecution.
She said that she felt “sad” hearing the charges against Greer, “because it’s somebody accused and somebody accusing,” and she said she worried that adjudicating between those accounts seemed like such a “weighty” responsibility.”
“Do you have any hesitation?” asked Assistant State’s Attorney Karen Roberg, who’s trying the case with fellow prosecutor Maxine Wilensky.
“No. I don’t think it would be an easy thing,” she said. “But nothing we do as people is easy.”
Speaking Their Truth
Superior Court at 235 Church St.
During “voir dire,” at least in the way it works in Connecticut — the only state that doesn’t allow the speedier process of polling jurors as a group — the courtroom becomes something like a public square, as randomly selected citizens were all asked to weigh in on the issues of the day.
Do they read the news? How does it make them feel? Do they think there’s been false accusations in the #MeToo era? Do they think cops treat people fairly? Do they look at people differently because of their religious beliefs?
And at an even more fundamental level, just showing up for jury duty became a check-up on the health of society. Who can afford to skip out on a week of life? To drive to court? To miss a paycheck? To trust their family will be alright?
One woman said she’s a middle-school teacher, who didn’t want to miss any of the first month back, which Judge Alander agreed would be a definite “hardship” for her students.
One man said he’d adopted his girlfriend’s children after she died, whom he needed to put on the school-bus every morning and pick up every afternoon. “I’m the only person left for them,” he said.
One woman who’d carpooled in said she’s taking care of her mom, who is bed-ridden and losing her sight from cancer. “I’m sorry, I’m still really processing it,” she said, almost in a daze as she asked Judge Alander if it was okay to go home.