 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tanner v. State5/4/2000
rsh punishment, is it your thinking it would be better to send them to Parchman for life rather than just let them go to sleep?
A: Yes.
. "This Court recognizes that it is often difficult for a juror to express in precise terms his or her feelings about, understanding of, and willingness to impose the death penalty." Simon, 688 So. 2d at 800.
"The difficulty of verbally expressing such views, of course, makes the interpretation of the juror's voir dire extremely difficult." Id. Accordingly, "we look to not only the ruling but the setting and time devoted to the questions, and the opportunity of sequestered voir dire." Id.
In the present case, the testimony of all four jurors, although somewhat contradictory at points, seemed to indicate opposition to the death penalty. It was therefore not unreasonable for the trial court to conclude these jurors might be unable to apply the law or view the facts impartially. As stated previously, "deference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror." Underwood, 708 So. 2d at 28. Accordingly, this Court finds the record supports the trial court's removal of these veniremen.
III.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING JURORS FOR CAUSE WHO WOULD AUTOMATICALLY VOTE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY
. Tanner argues that the trial judge erred by denying his challenges for cause against four jurors who would only consider the death penalty and no other option. In Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), the United States Supreme Court set forth the criteria upon which a challenge for cause of this nature may be sustained. "A sentence of death cannot be executed if the jury was simply chosen by excluding potential jurors for cause simply because they voiced general objections or conscientious scruples against the death penalty." Williams v. State, 445 So. 2d 798, 805 (Miss. 1984). Instead, the State is permitted to exclude potential jurors only if (1) they would automatically vote against capital punishment without regard to the law and the evidence, or (2) their attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as the defendant's guilt. Id. Tanner challenged four jurors based upon their views of the death penalty and was denied. Those jurors' testimony, in relevant part, was as follows:
1. Patrick Eugene Pandolfi
Q: Does that mean if you find him guilty of capital murder then you would automatically vote for the death penalty?
A: I would be strongly in favor of it.
Q: You can set aside your personal opinion and weigh what the law is and what the evidence is before making a decision?
A: Certainly.
Q: And would you do that?
A: Uh-huh.
2. Albert Arnold
Q: So just because you found somebody guilty of murdering someone else, premeditated murder of someone else during a robbery, wouldn't mean that you would automatically vote for the death penalty?
A: No, it would just depend on the evidence and the circumstances.
Q: And I think you will probably know some of the police officers that testify, Winstead, or some of the others. Would you have any tendency to give more credibility to their testimony than other people?
A: No, sir. The only way I know those individuals are through my past employment with the police department. As far as knowing them personally, I don't.
3. William Richardson
Q: Of course, I know you haven't heard any of the evidence in this case, but at this point if you found the defendant guilty of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|