 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Guillory3/11/1998
tory challenges. The purpose of the rule of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) is to prevent the State from using peremptory challenges to exclude men and women from jury service solely on the basis of race. The Defendant in the present case simply makes conclusory allegations, but he does not point to any specific instance of the State peremptorily excluding a single black venireman solely on the basis of race. Furthermore, the Defendant does not complain that the trial Judge improperly granted challenges for cause except for Ms. Bates.
Thus, this argument is without merit.
Finally, the Defendant argues he was improperly prevented from asking the prospective jurors their favorite Bible verses. Actually, the Defendant was able to ask one prospective juror, Kathryn Moore who ultimately served on the jury, what was her favorite Bible verse, but the State later objected to any further questions about favorite Bible verses. The trial Judge told the Defendant he could ask about the prospective jurors' religion and religious beliefs, but the Defendant could not go into detail about their favorite Bible verses.
The Defendant cites in support of his argument State v. Lee, 559 So.2d 1310, (La. 1990). The defendant in Lee had complained that he was unduly restricted in his voir dire questioning about how jurors felt if a defendant did not testify on his behalf. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled:
This Court has specifically rejected the contention that unjustified restrictions on voir dire can be cured by a response on the part of the prospective juror that he will follow the law as given him by the Judge when the juror is unaware of the complexity of the law and where that law involves such a basic right of the defendant. . . . Rather, counsel must be permitted to informally question the juror of his own experiences and attitudes that may influence his ability to follow the law. A juror's response to less imposing questions may well reveal attitudes and biases not disclosed by superficially correct answers. . . .
Id. at 1316 (citations omitted).
The Lee opinion further stated that defense counsel should be given "wide latitude" during voir dire, within reasonable limits, to explore the attitudes and experiences of the prospective jurors, but at the same time, the trial Judge is given much discretion to limit voir dire as long as the defendant is not deprived of a reasonable opportunity to intelligently exercise his challenges. Although the Defendant has shown that he was denied the right to ask a specific question, this fact alone does not establish how the Defendant was deprived of effective voir dire. The ruling of the trial Judge was within the discretion granted him by law.
This argument is without merit.
ARGUMENT NO. 9 Ä ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 18
The final argument of the Defendant concerns the trial court's refusal to include a special requested jury instruction on the credibility evaluations for snitches or informants. Unfortunately, that portion of the trial proceedings at which the Defendant objected to the failure to include his special requested instruction was not transcribed. The court minutes state:
Mr. Smith objects to portions of the Jury charge and states reasons. Mr. Smith files the defendant's Proposed Jury Instructions into the record. Mr. Bryant advises the Court that the State has no objections to the charge. Mr. Smith moves for a mistrial and states reasons. Mr. Smith further requests an instruction from the Court to the Jury. The Court denies the request for a mistrial.
The proposed jury instruction states:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|