NORTHAMPTON — After a week of filling out questionnaires and interviews, 13 jurors have been impaneled for the third murder trial for a former Granby woman accused of killing her wife.
Three more must be seated before opening arguments in the trial are heard, scheduled tentatively for Wednesday.
Cara Rintala has been tried twice, and each trial ended with a jury unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Rintala has maintained her innocence throughout.
The process of getting the 13 jurors seated up to this point has been an arduous one, with roughly 200 prospective jurors coming and going from the Hampshire County Courthouse since early last week.
Paul M. Collins Jr., who is the director of legal studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said he sees two primary challenges in impaneling a jury for a case that is being tried for the third time in the same court. Although familiar with some aspects of the Rintala case, he was speaking generally about the process.
“You can never be totally sure, but the process is designed to weed out any substantial bias any juror might have,” Collins said.
The first challenge, and also the most obvious, he said, “is the possibility that people from the local community will be aware of the case.”
Furthermore, Collins cited the uphill battle the prosecution may face in presenting essentially the same basic set of facts to a new jury.
“We pretty much know what the evidence is going to look like,” Collins said.
During the process of selecting a jury, attorneys and a judge are generally searching for people who will have the capacity to understand and assess each side’s positions — and are able to do so patiently, he said.
Judge Mary-Lou Rup has said in court throughout the jury selection process that this trial is expected to last four or five weeks.
“You want people that are going to be able to understand all the evidence that is going to be presented,” Collins said. “People that are able to pay attention, because this is not going to be a short trial. Beyond that, the defense and prosecution are looking for very different things.”
Rintala’s attorney, David Hoose, of Northampton, and First Assistant Northwestern District Attorney Stephen Gagne declined to be interviewed for this story.
Previously, Hoose has attempted to limit public access to pretrial proceedings related to the case, writing in a January 2013 motion that there was “a substantial probability that Ms. Rintala’s right to a fair trial … will be jeopardized by public dissemination of the evidence that the court may ultimately rule should not be heard by the jury.”
The motion was denied before the first trial.
“People have all kinds of biases, and the defense and the prosecution are going to try and figure out what those biases are,” Collins said. “A lot of it has to do with the definition of reasonable doubt. It’s not the easiest concept to wrap one’s head around.”
What constitutes “reasonable doubt” for one person may not rise to the same standard for another, Collins said, adding that is often what leads to deadlocked juries.
So, if it is so difficult to impanel a jury under these circumstances, why not move the case to a different venue?
“Change of venue motions are rarely granted,” Collins said, (especially) “when that community has tens of thousands of individuals.”
The process so far has consisted of each of the prospective jurors completing a 100-plus-item questionnaire.
Those who are called back for in-person interviews are seated at a conference table next to the judge and across from the attorneys.
Even before the questionnaire, whenever a new group of prospective jurors arrived in court, there was a weeding out of those who could not reasonably participate as a juror or who cited hardships.
For example:
The psychology undergraduate who would miss a month’s worth of classes? Excused.
The physician who wouldn’t be able to attend to her patients? Excused.
The woman who was seven months pregnant? Excused.
As for the others, Rup would almost always ask how familiar they were with the case.
Some said they were just versed on the basics that the judge told them in court.
Others had seen newspaper headlines or watched newscasts over the years or gossiped with family members and neighbors.
Hoose or Rup almost always asked if they would automatically accept a police officer’s testimony as the truth.
“Yes,” one woman told the attorneys and judge seated at the table. Excused.
“Yes,” said another man, who worked as a corrections officer, later that same morning. Excused.
Finally, one woman asserted no, saying, “I watched ‘Making a Murderer.’” Excused.
Michael Majchrowicz can be reached at mmajchrowicz@gazettenet.com.