 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. State12/22/2000
BR>
"[J.D.]: Well, I don't know. I'm, also, going to help out with his campaign. So, there is a lot going on with it. I would rather be straight up front. I just as soon -- I've sat on a jury before. I'm not opposed to that by no means, but I'd rather not be sitting on a jury with him defending.
"....
"MR. BRANTLEY: If you were instructed you had to base your verdict, your decision, solely on the evidence in this case, you could do that, couldn't you?
"[J.D.]: Yeah, I'm an honest person. Yeah, I could do that.
"MR. VALESKA: ... f Mr. Meredith wasn't representing him and it was just Mr. Brantley, then, it would make no difference of any kind, correct?
"[J.D.]: Correct.
"MR. VALESKA: ... ecause of the relationship and working on his campaign, would it that you would listen to their side more, or give more credence, because of that relationship.?
"[J.D.]: I would try not to sway that way, but I don't know. I'd say it probably wouldn't. I mean, I'd try to be honest. "MR. VALESKA: Could it affect you?
"[J.D.]: It could affect me. I'm human.
"....
MR. BRANTLEY: But it couldn't affect you?
"[J.D.]: I would, probably, knowing Ben and being my uncle and everything, I imagine if he -- I would have a tendency to probably hear him a little bit more than I would anybody else." (R. 152-56).
After expressing some doubt or reservation as to whether the fact that his uncle, with whom he had a close relationship, was one of defense counsel in the case would cause him to favor the defendant's case over the prosecution's, J.D. testified that he would rather not serve on the jury. He then testified that, if instructed to do so, he would base his verdict solely on the evidence presented; however, he subsequently testified that the relationship could and probably would affect him in his deliberations, and probably would cause him to favor the defense. As he put it, "I imagine ... I would have a tendency to probably hear him a little bit more than I would anybody else."
After reviewing J.D.'s testimony on voir dire in its entirety, we conclude that it was sufficient to support a reasonable conclusion by the trial court that J.D., if selected to serve on the jury, would have an absolute bias in favor of the defense because of his relationship with defense co-counsel, who was his uncle. The granting of the prosecution's motion to challenge J.D. for cause was within the discretion of the trial court. We find no disparate treatment in the trial court's rulings as to veniremembers J.D. and C.S. as the appellant suggests. J.D.'s case was clearly distinguishable from that of C.S.
V.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in excusing veniremembers who are illiterate. He argues that because he cannot read or write, the removal of the illiterate veniremembers prevented him from being tried by jurors who would be able to empathize with his illiteracy. He contends that the excusal of these veniremembers for this reason denied him his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. We find no merit in these contentions.
Alabama law provides that to qualify to serve on a jury a prospective juror must be able to read. Section 12-16-60(a)(2), in pertinent part, provides:
"A prospective juror is qualified to serve on a jury if the juror is generally reputed to be honest and intelligent and is esteemed in the community for integrity, good character and sound judgment and also ... s able to read, speak, understand and follow instructions given by a judge in the English language ...."
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|