Opinion ID: 2735768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Selection in State Trial Court

Text: In 2003, in Florida state court, Fennell was charged with the first-degree murder of his girlfriend, Ernestine Monds, and with unlawful possession of a firearm. The state trial court granted Fennell’s request to sever the two counts and try the murder count first. After a trial, the jury found Fennell guilty of firstdegree 2 Case: 13-10254 Date Filed: 09/22/2014 Page: 3 of 15 murder, and the state trial court imposed a life sentence. Later, Fennell pled guilty to the firearm count, and the state trial court imposed a 44.85-month sentence, to run concurrent with his life sentence. Because this appeal concerns only defense counsel’s actions during jury selection, we review voir dire. At the beginning of voir dire, the state trial court explained to the potential jurors some basic trial principles, such as the government’s burden of proof, the jury’s fact-finding role, and the defendant’s right not to testify or present evidence, and asked whether anyone needed to be excused. The state trial court, with the parties’ agreement, excused several panel members for cause for various reasons, such as the inability to understand English, work conflicts, and health concerns. The attorneys asked the remaining panel members follow-up questions. Among other things, the prosecutor asked if anyone, given the nature of the charge, felt that he or she could not judge the facts fairly. Several potential jurors, but not Abdool, expressed concerns. The prosecutor asked the panel members if there was anything else that might prevent them from being an impartial juror, and no one raised a hand. Then Fennell’s trial counsel, Mallorye Cunningham, told the panel she was looking for an impartial jury. Cunningham asked each member to state his or her first thought upon hearing that the case involved a murder charge. Cunningham 3 Case: 13-10254 Date Filed: 09/22/2014 Page: 4 of 15 pointed out that there was a death in the case and asked the panel members whether sympathy for the victim might affect their decision-making. During questioning, several panel members stated that they might not be able to be impartial because of their sympathy for the victim or because of the serious nature of the charged offense. One panel member, Ms. Solomon, stated that she got very emotional and did not think she could be impartial because she had sympathy for everyone and everything, including bugs, and could not kill a fly. Cunningham asked anyone else who shared Solomon’s opinion to raise his or her hand. Another panel member asked, “In which aspect?” Cunningham asked whether anyone else felt like this was not the case for him or her because of the nature of the charges. One panel member, Mr. Reeder, raised his hand. Again, Abdool did not raise his hand. During a sidebar conference, the state trial court agreed to strike several more panel members for cause, including Solomon, because they had indicated they could not be impartial. At the prosecutor’s request, and before resuming voir dire, the state trial court advised the panel that a jury’s “verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias or sympathy” but rather must be based on the jury’s view of the evidence and on the law. The state trial court explained that while it was normal to have feelings of sadness or sympathy in a murder case, “we ask you not to base your decision based on those feelings,” and “you may not be 4 Case: 13-10254 Date Filed: 09/22/2014 Page: 5 of 15 able to do that for one reason or another, and if you can’t do that, then you should let us know.” Defense counsel Cunningham resumed questioning each panel member about his or her initial reaction to the murder charge and whether sympathy would play a role in his or her deliberations. When Cunningham came to Abdool, the following exchange occurred: MS. CUNNINGHAM: What was your opinion when you initially heard the charges? MR. ABDOOL: Well, the first thing I thought about, what was — that crime, that was my first reaction, whatever caused him — MS. CUNNINGHAM: Okay. Do you believe that sympathy would play a factor for you in this case? MR. ABDOOL: As a parent. MS. CUNNINGHAM: As what parent? MR. ABDOOL: As a parent. MS. CUNNINGHAM: Not as a parent but as a juror, would you have sympathy, would you be able to set aside sympathy and not have that as a factor in your deliberations in this case? MR. ABDOOL: No. MS. CUNNINGHAM: Is that a no? MR. ABDOOL: Yes. Following voir dire, Cunningham moved to strike ten potential jurors for cause, some for being unable to set aside sympathy for the victim, including Reeder. The state trial court agreed to strike eight of those panel members, including Reeder, and struck thirty more panel members as a result of preemptory strikes from both Cunningham and the prosecutor. Cunningham did not move to strike Abdool. 5 Case: 13-10254 Date Filed: 09/22/2014 Page: 6 of 15 At the conclusion of the evidence and prior to jury deliberations, the state trial court again instructed the jury that its verdict could not be based on sympathy for any party to the case. The written instructions, which were given to the jury, also included this instruction.