Opinion ID: 2391925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Voir Dire Allegations

Text: During jury selection in this case, the trial judge asked seven preliminary questions to the jury as a whole. The first five questions covered whether the length of the trial would be a difficulty; whether sequestration during jury deliberations would be a hardship; and whether the jurors knew the defendants, victims, attorneys, or witnesses in the case. None of these questions are alleged to be problematic. Question number six asked do you have any bias or prejudice either for or against the State or the defendant that would make it difficult to render a fair decision in this case? Question number seven asked [i]s there any reason why you cannot give this case your undivided attention and render a fair and impartial verdict? Following these questions, the trial judge called the jurors and attorneys into his chambers to continue voir dire on an individual basis. Once in chambers, Ms. Smith stated her answer was no to all of the preliminary questions. She was asked again whether there was any reason why [she couldn't] give this case [her] undivided attention and to this she also answered no. She was also asked: Have you or a close friend or relative been a victim or witness to a violent crime? Smith answered No, your Honor. Banther alleges that Smith did not give truthful responses to the questions of whether she could give his case her undivided attention; whether she had any bias or prejudice either for or against the State; and whether she had been the victim of a violent crime. First, Banther alleges that Smith was under investigation for embezzlement during the course of his trial and pled guilty to charges of theft following his trial. Second, Banther alleges that Smith was using cocaine during his trial. Third, Banther alleges that the forelady had been sexually molested by her paternal grandfather as a child and reported being raped on two separate occasions prior to trial. Finally, Banther alleges that the Superior Court committed reversible error by not making any inquiry into the mental capacity of the jurors generally and the forelady in particular.