Ex-Lt. Tennant.
Nineteen potential jurors walked into a fifth-floor courtroom Tuesday morning — and 18 were dismissed, revealing the challenges of finding jurors deemed fair to hear a case against a former police officer accused of domestic violence.
The opening of jury selection took place in Courtroom 5A at the state courthouse at 235 Church St. for the criminal case of Rahgue Tennant.
Tennant, a retired former New Haven lieutenant who oversaw the Dixwell policing district, was arrested in September 2018 for allegedly assaulting his wife, holding his family hostage, and threatening to shoot up his family’s East Shore home.
The state has charged Tennant with one felony count of second-degree assault, one felony count of risk of injury to a child, and one misdemeanor count of second-degree breach of peace.
After years of hearings and continuances, Tennant rolled the dice and decided to go to trial rather than accepting a plea deal that would have kept him out of prison but ended his career in public safety. In August 2021, a state judge told him that he could face 15 and a half years behind bars if found guilty.
He has pleaded not guilty to all three charges.
Dressed in a gray suit and black-rimmed glasses, Tennant spent Tuesday morning quietly taking notes as he sat next to defense attorney Rick Silverstein. State prosecutors Kelly Davis and Jason Germain sat at a table a few feet away, as state Superior Court Judge Jon Alander presided over the morning’s proceedings. (Silverstein and Tennant were joined at their table midday by fellow local defense attorney Jamie Alosi.)
Alander estimated it should take four or five days to complete the trial once it starts on Monday.
Davis, Germain, and Silverstein listed dozens of potential witnesses, many who are current or former New Haven police officers, who may testify over the course of the trial.
No evidence was presented and no arguments were made by either side in court on Tuesday.
Instead, the morning saw Judge Alander call a 22-person panel of prospective jurors into the room.
He gave a high-level summary of the charges. Then he let the lawyers take the lead in questioning each potential juror to see if they would presume the defendant’s innocence, evaluate the evidence against the relevant law, assess the credibility of witnesses, and deliver a unanimous verdict.
The state court is seeking eight jurors in total — six for the final jury, and two alternates.
Silverstein told the prospective jurors that Tennant himself plans to take the witness stand during the trial.
Just because Tennant has been arrested on these charges — and just because he has pleaded not guilty, and plans to speak on his own defense during the trial — “does not prove a thing,” Alander told the prospective jurors.
They’ll have to impartially weigh the evidence and the judge’s legal instructions and then decide whether or not Tennant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
19 Called, 18 Excused
The judge and attorneys in the courtroom Tuesday quickly learned just how difficult it would be to find a set of six jurors and two alternates willing and able to sit for Tennant’s trial.
Some prospective jurors were dismissed by Alander for reasons one might expect to hear at any trial at any time of year: doctor’s appointments, job responsibilities, classes.
Some reasons were more specific to the summer: long-planned out-of-state vacations that could be scuttled if the trial dragged on for more than a week. “If we go long, I’m not going to make you stay,” Alander assured one prospective juror after hearing about a planned upcoming two-week vacation in California.
And some reasons were particular to this case, which Silverstein described time and again as sitting at the intersection of two “hot-button issues”: domestic violence and police misconduct.
“They get a lot of bad press these days,” Silverstein said about police officers when questioning one prospective witness. “Would you agree there’s good and bad in every profession? Competent and incompetent, honest and dishonest” in any group, police officers included?
Davis pursued a similar line of inquiry when questioning yet another prospective juror on behalf of the prosecution. The prospective juror said she thinks “there are a couple bad apples” in any group, police departments included. Davis replied, “We want a juror to see a police officer like anyone else,” to not give them “a leg up or a leg down” because of their profession.
A handful of jurors were dismissed from consideration Tuesday morning because their opinions and past experiences potentially clouded their ability to be fair if called to hear evidence and issue a verdict in a criminal case involving a former cop accused of domestic violence charges.
One prospective juror, a middle-aged white woman wearing a white cardigan and a black face mask, told Germain that she felt “uncomfortable” when she heard that this case involves someone accused of committing domestic violence. It “brought up feelings,” she said.
That’s because her own daughter was the victim of a relative’s alleged abuse when she was 5. “I remember going through the Yale Child Study Center,” as well as going to court, she said.
Would that experience make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial if tapped to be a juror in this case? Alander asked. “Can you keep what happened to your daughter separate from what happened in this case?”
“I don’t know,” she replied.
“That’s a fair answer,” Alander said, before excusing her further consideration.
Another prospective juror, a white man in his 30s wearing a black T‑shirt and with curly brown hair, told Silverstein, “I think I can be fair” if tapped to be a juror in a criminal case where a former police officer is the defendant.
But, he said, when he heard that the former cop had been arrested for domestic violence charges, he did think about all of the media reports he has read about police officers being violent on and off the job. “It’s kind of a stereotype,” he said.
“We all have prejudices,” Silverstein acknowledged. He asked the prospective juror to look across the room at Tennant and say whether or not he could presume the defendant to be innocent of all charges.
“I can try my best,” the prospective juror said. But, he confessed, “I don’t think I could.” Alander thanked him, then excused him from further consideration.
Before the judge called yet another juror into the room for questioning, Germain stood up to express a concern.
This next juror has the same last name as a Meriden police officer whom Germain once prosecuted on domestic violence charges a decade ago, he said. He wasn’t 100 percent sure that this prospective juror was that man’s son, but he thought so. Alander urged Germain to ask the prospective juror directly about that during his allotted time to question him.
Silverstein got there first.
“How do you feel about cops?” Silverstein asked the prospective juror, a Black man in his 20s, wearing a blue-collared shirt tucked into his jeans.
“They’re all right,” the prospective juror replied. “My dad was a cop.”
“Your pop was prosecuted,” is that right? Silverstein asked.
Germain stood up to protest. Alander intervened. Silverstein, exasperated, said he wanted to get that line of questioning out of the way early.
“Your father was a police officer?” Alander asked the prospective juror.
Yes, he replied.
And he was prosecuted for criminal offense similar to what Tennant is facing in this case?
Yes, the man replied again.
Does any of that “prevent you from being fair” in this case? the judge asked.
“No,” the prospective juror said.
Alander asked the man to temporarily leave the room as he consulted with the two sides’ attorneys.
Germain repeated that he prosecuted that man’s father on domestic violence charges a decade ago. The man wasn’t convicted of those charges. But, Germain said, the man was a police officer. Arrested on domestic violence charges. And prosecuted by the same prosecutor involved in this case.
Silverstein and Germain both consented to having the prospective juror excused, even though Alander said that he didn’t think that the man’s father’s experience automatically disqualified him from serving as a fair juror in the Tennant case.
Silverstein said he agreed to drop this prospective juror so as not to get on the bad side of the state so early on in the trial.
“You owe me one,” he said to Germain.
Juror #1: “What Matters Is The Law”
The only prospective juror who wound up being seated on the jury after being questioned by the judge and the attorneys Tuesday morning was a middle-aged white man wearing glasses and a tucked-in collared shirt. He said he works as a freelance journalist and University of New Haven lecturer, specializing in politics and religion.
The man told the judge up front that his wife spent two decades working for a regional behavioral health care organization that does work with the Umbrella Center, a domestic violence prevention nonprofit that may have some of its employees serve as witnesses in this case. He also said that he and his wife have donated money and other goods to the Umbrella Center over the years.
Will that affect your ability to be impartial and fair in this case? Alander asked.
No, the man replied.
“You seem to be a very thoughtful man,” Silverstein said. He then described domestic violence as a “very hot-button issue.” His client has been charged with some pretty serious offenses, Silverstein said, and he denies all of the allegations.
“It’s really not how you feel about the crime,” the defense attorney said. Being on a jury is about impartially and fairly evaluating evidence according to the law.
“Would you agree with me that at times it takes great effort to be fair?” Silverstein asked.
Yes, the prospective juror replied. He said he would be willing to make that effort, and to presume the defendant innocent “until proven guilty.”
“Innocent unless proven guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt, Silverstein said. It’s an important distinction.
Hypothetically, Silverstein continued, what if you were out at a bar with a friend having a drink, and someone asked, “How do you feel about cops?” What would you say in response?
“I would not answer the question, because it lacks specificity,” the prospective juror said.
What’s your feeling about how police officers perform their duties? Silverstein pressed.
“I presume, if you wear the uniform, you’re there to serve,” the man replied. He agreed with Silverstein’s assessment that there are good and bad people, competent and incompetent people, in police departments, just as there are in all professions and walks of life.
During the state’s turn to question that same prospective juror, Germain asked if the man would be willing and able to hand down a guilty verdict if the state had proved that the defendant was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” even if the juror himself was not 100 percent convinced on the matter.
If the state has proved its case “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the man said, he’d be willing to hand down a guilty verdict.
“It doesn’t matter what I like or don’t like,” the prospective juror said. “What matters is the law,” as explained by the judge.
Both sides consented to having this man appointed to this trial’s jury. Alander named him “Juror #1,” and told him to come back on Monday for the start of the trial.
By the time of the 1 p.m. lunch break, Alander and the attorneys had interviewed 19 prospective jurors, and dismissed 18. They had three more interviews to do on Tuesday, before going through the same process again with a new panel of prospective jurors on Wednesday.
