 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Medina v. People6/27/2005
reconceived belief as to some facet of the case does not warrant exclusion for cause." People v. Vecchiarelli-McLaughlin, 984 P.2d 72, 75 (Colo. 1999).
It is the trial court's duty to determine the competency and credibility of each juror. People v. Young, 16 P.3d 821, 824 (Colo. 2001); McCrary 190 Colo. at 547, 549 P.2d at 1328. The trial court's decision to deny a challenge for cause in the jury selection process or decision to excuse a juror will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Carillo, 974 P.2d at 485; People v. Abbott, 690 P.2d 1263, 1266 (Colo. 1984). The fact that the jury may have been exposed to pretrial publicity or is familiar with the general nature of the case does not by itself cause a jury to be constitutionally defective. People v. Loscutoff, 661 P.2d 274, 276 (Colo. 1983).
Our precedent recognizes that juries are formed out of the various members of the community, with each juror bringing his or her own life experiences and understanding of human behavior. In a criminal case, jurors are instructed that they should bring these life experiences and observations when considering the evidence presented at trial. CJI-Crim. 3:01 (" ou should consider all the evidence in the light of your observations and experience in life"); see also People v. Harlan, 109 P.3d 616, 632 (Colo. 2005) (stating: "We expect jurors to bring their backgrounds and beliefs to bear on their deliberations but to give ultimate consideration only to the facts admitted and the law as instructed."). Jurors are also admonished to not perform any research on the facts of the case, discuss the case, or form opinions about the evidence presented until after all the evidence is presented. CJI-Crim. 2:07. We presume that a jury follows these instructions given by the trial court. People v. Trujillo, 83 P.3d 642, 648 (Colo. 2004).
In addition to a trial by jury, due process entitles a defendant to a fair trial but not a perfect trial. People v. Dunaway, 88 P.3d 619, 631 (Colo. 2004); People v. Roy, 723 P.2d 1345, 1349 (Colo. 1986). Due process also requires that the prosecution prove every element of a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 1242, 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994); Vega v. People, 893 P.2d 107, 111 (Colo. 1995). This does not mean that the government's burden is lessened simply because a juror asks a question which solicits additional relevant evidence in a criminal case. To hold otherwise would undermine the rule that an appellate court is required to consider the evidence as a whole -- not simply the evidence presented by the prosecution -- before determining if there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a rational finder of fact. People v. Dunaway, 88 P.3d 619, 625 (Colo. 2004); Romero v. People, 170 Colo. 234, 256-57, 460 P.2d 784, 795 (1969) (court is to review entire course of proceedings to determine if a defendant's right to due process and a fair trial are violated).
Thus, while a defendant does have a right to an unbiased jury, he is not entitled to have his case presented to a jury that sits as a passive receptacle of information. Nor does it mean that once a juror forms a bias about a piece of evidence introduced at trial or about the credibility of a witness, that the defendant's rights have been violated.
Juror questioning undoubtedly changes courtroom dynamics but not to the extent that it renders a criminal trial constitutionally infirm. Minor delays for bench conferences to discuss whether a piece of evidence is admissible or a party's decision to reorganize its theory of the case based upon new evidence adduced at trial are not foreign concepts t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|