Case Name: James WALKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-02-25
Citations: 706 So. 2d 120
Docket Number: No. 97-2567
Parties: James WALKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before GODERICH, GREEN and SORONDO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 706
Pages: 120–120

Head Matter:
James WALKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 97-2567.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 25, 1998.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Suzanne M. Froix, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Keith S. Kromash, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before GODERICH, GREEN and SORONDO, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We cannot conclude that the lower court manifestly erred when it denied appellants cause challenge to a federal prosecutor whose responses to voir dire questioning did not otherwise indicate an inability to be fair and impartial in the proceeding below. See Davis v. State, 461 So.2d 67, 70 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 913, 105 S.Ct. 3540, 87 L.Ed.2d 663 (1985) and habeas corpus denied sub nom, Davis v. Wainwright, 498 So.2d 857 (Fla.1986); Lusk v. State, 446 So.2d 1038, 1041 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 229, 83 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984) and grant of habeas corpus reversed sub nom, Lusk v. Dugger, 890 F.2d 332 (11th Cir.1989).
Affirmed.
GODERICH and GREEN, JJ., concur.