 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Golphin8/25/2000
BR>
[PROSECUTOR]: Yes, sir. One -- I have several reasons for that excuse, Your Honor, and one of them is that as I talked to Ms. Holder, I attempted to draw her out and to engage her in more than one- word answers or simply short-phrased answers in a number of ways, not only with the questions that were in the pool of questions I was asking, but also questions that related to her and her family relationship and so on.
She -- she did not respond to that. I frankly don't know if that's because she's shy or because she didn't want to tell us or perceived it as her personal business or whatever. But I never was able to draw her out in that manner.
. . . And so that was one of the reasons that the state considered excusing Ms. Holder. Another is the age of Ms. Holder. She indicated that she is 22 and that she has a sister who is 18. The relative ages of those individuals and the fact that they still live together in view in particular, Your Honor, of what the state perceives the defendant to be questioning jurors about and the state's perception of what the defendant likely to assert as a defense or as an argument in this case, the defendant [have] consistently asked jurors about their brothers and their sisters and the age differences between them and the relationships, how close they were, how close they were growing up, those sorts of things.
THE COURT: You -- you're contending here that this individual has a brother the approximate age range of these defendants?
[PROSECUTOR]: She said she has a sister who is 18 and she is 22. They both still live at home with their parents. They both work in the same place.
THE COURT: That she has a sibling in the age range of the defendants?
[PROSECUTOR]: Yes, sir. And in view of what the state perceives and has gathered from the line of questioning -- consistent line of questioning of the defense attorneys of the prospective jurors to this point, the state felt that this juror was one that we wanted to consider and think about in terms of what we perceive the defendant[s'] defense to be.
Also I noted in my notes and I remember at the time when I asked her about the death penalty, she paused and she said, well, I guess if someone found -- and then she said reasonable doubt, the death penalty might be -- is appropriate. Then I see nothing wrong with it. She had a pause there that also we had some concern about. And the --but mainly the concerns that we had regarding what the state perceives the defense to be proceeding on is our concern.
The trial court then gave Tilmon's counsel an opportunity to respond. Tilmon's counsel stated that the State had not asked other prospective jurors whether they had siblings in this age group; that Holder answered the closed-ended questions posed to her with "yes, ma'am," and "no, ma'am," answers; and that Holder did not hesitate when answering the State's questions regarding the death penalty, to which she indicated she could vote for the death penalty if someone was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Kevin's counsel reiterated Tilmon's counsel's comments and noted that he had not heard the State ask other prospective jurors about their siblings, the State asked nothing but yes or no questions, and Holder answered the death penalty questions appropriately.
The trial court then ruled:
It is the Court's belief that the articulated reason that the juror was relatively young and close to the age range of the defendants and that the juror had a sibling at approximately the age range of the defendants constitutes an articulable race neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge, and so the motio
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 71 72 73 74 75 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|