 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. State12/22/2000
de donations, put up signs and helped me out. He did all those things.
"[C.S.]: Donations. And when I talked to my friends, I'd say, `Support Doug.'
"MR. BRANTLEY: And how recent ago? His most recent campaign?
"[C.S.]: The last one.
"MR. BRANTLEY: About four or five years ago?
"[C.S.]: ... n '92, I think.
"MR. BRANTLEY: Would that fact interfere with your ability to return a verdict in this case based solely on the evidence?
"[C.S.] No.
"MR. BRANTLEY: What about the fact that you used to work with Mr. Maxwell's dad in the FBI? ...
"[C.S.] Ray Maxwell. Fourteen years in this office.
"MR. BRANTLEY: Would that fact interfere with your ability to return a verdict based solely on the evidence?
"[C.S.]: No.
"....
"MR. VALESKA: ... I'm up for re-election now, but I've not asked you for any support at this time, have I?
"[C.S.]: No, and I might not give any, because you didn't have any opposition last time, and you got a lot of money.
"MR. VALESKA: ... ou brought a book to the office and left with Sue Locke about baseball for Mr. Maxwell. You didn't talk to me. And I was in there.
"[C.S.]: I just waved at you.
"MR. VALESKA: e didn't talk about the case. We didn't talk about your being on jury duty. You just left a book on Rickwood baseball, Birmingham." (R. 189-92.)
In addition, during the general voir dire, defense counsel asked the venire if any of the members would hold it against the defendant if he did not testify. C.S. responded, "I know what the law is, but I don't like the law. I would be more comfortable if a guy came up and said, `I didn't do it, let me tell you what happened.'" (R. 368.) Because of this response, the trial court later further questioned C.S. individually. The record shows the following:
"THE COURT: ... The reason I had [C.S.] come back in, he made a comment to the extent that he thought that the matter of someone not testifying in his own behalf was bad law, and we need to [delve into] that just a little bit. Any questions?
"MR. BRANTLEY: ... The fact that you believe that it's a bad law, does that mean --
"[C.S.]: That won't change my -- I wouldn't be thinking in advance he's guilty. No, I just think in some countries they do require them to, and I'm in agreement with that.
"MR. BRANTLEY: Okay. If Mr. Smith doesn't testify, will you hold that against him?
"[C.S.]: I will not.
"MR. BRANTLEY: Will you make some inferences from that?
"[C.S.]: (Negative response.)
"MR. BRANTLEY: And you won't discuss that in front of the other jurors.
"[C.S.]: No." (R. 381-83.)
The record shows that C.S. could set aside his opinions and try the appellant's case fairly and impartially and in accordance with the law and evidence. Likewise, the record shows that C.S.'s duty and responsibilities as a juror would not be affected by his lengthy experience as a law-enforcement officer or by his personal relationships with the prosecuting attorneys.
As we stated in our discussion of the law in Part I of this opinion, to justify a challenge for cause, there must be a statutory ground or some matter that imports absolute bias or favor. Even proof that a veniremember is biased or has a fixed opinion is insufficient. The test to be applied is whether the veniremember can set aside his biases, prejudices, or opinions and try the case fairly and impartially, based upon the evidence. The evidence here fails to show
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.
|
|