Opinion ID: 1809527
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Venire member Michael Pritchard

Text: Pritchard was unsuccessfully challenged for cause by the defendant on three separate occasions. The first challenge related to the venue issue and the risk of taint from a fellow panel member's comments. Pritchard recalled reading and hearing about the Moon Lake murders in 1988, but didn't remember much and didn't follow the case. However, he heard fellow panel member Cheryl Newton state that she had discussed the case with her ex-husband, a private investigator while he was working on the case and that these discussions led her to form the opinion that Divers was guilty. Ms. Newton then said that it would be hard for her to be fair because I think I know more than what was in the paper. After Ms. Newton made these comments, the other panel members were asked whether what they heard had affected them. Pritchard replied, Well, I don't think it helps to hear what I just heard, but I don't know what she knows. The defense attorney asked Pritchard whether what he heard might influence his deliberations and he responded, I can't tell you that they wouldn't enter my mind. As far as influence my decision I don't think it would but I can't guarantee you that, no. [6] The defendant's cause challenge to Pritchard on the basis of the harmful effects of Newton's comments was denied. When asked about his ability or intention to do certain things, Pritchard frequently equivocated or qualified his answer. For example, when the prosecutor asked him whether he would automatically recommend death if he found the defendant guilty or he would consider everything, Pritchard responded, I would hope I would consider the circumstances involved. The fundamental problem with Pritchard was his disagreement with the law on penalties for murder. He felt that both first degree and second degree murder should carry the death penalty. He stated that, in his view, if it's premeditated whether it's in the act of a robbery or all of the other things that you listed (elements of first and second degree murder), the death penalty should go along with it. The defense attorney asked him if he would be able to leave his personal views aside, and Pritchard expressed doubt that he would be able to do so. The defense attorney then tried to ascertain the implications of Pritchard's views, asking [Y]ou're not certain that you would be able to follow that law because you disagree with it? Pritchard responded by equivocating, saying, All I can say is I think I would. But, no, I can't guarantee you that. The following colloquy then occurred: Q (by the defense attorney): .... Now, what I'm wanting to know, sir, from you is, you've already made a decision guilty of first degree murder under the facts I've given you. Okay? Now, are you simply going to seat (sic) here and go through this process as things are presented to you basically, you know, go through the motions and just wait to vote for the death penalty because you've already voted guilty? A (by Mr. Pritchard): Sounds like what I'm saying. If I believe .. believe that something is first degree murder and it's premeditated, and I've got my opinion that the death penalty should go along with it, I can't help what the law says. That if there were mitigating circumstances or not.. I mean I'd like to say that I would ignore it, my feelings about it, but I couldn't tell you that. In an attempt to rehabilitate Pritchard, the prosecutor then tried to spell out the differences between first degree and second degree murder. She then asked him whether he would look for a way to convict the defendant of first degree murder so he could recommend the death penalty ... or are you going to be able to do what the law requires a juror to do in a case like this, to consider the options ... Pritchard answered, Well, I hope I would. I hope I would not go fishing for some excuse to come up with first degree (murder). The following exchange then occurred: Q (by the prosecutor): You consider yourself a trigger happy person or something or somebody ... A (by Mr. Pritchard): Trigger happy? Q: You know, somebody who thinks that you have to automatically give somebody the death penalty? A: As I've said before, to me when it's premeditated they should carry the death penalty. But, as I said, that's an option. Q: That's an option. A: That's all it is. Q: All right. And are you going to take your opinion and say, That's my opinion, but when the judge reads me the law .. because the judge is going to give you the law. Are you going to be able to say, When the judge gives me the law I'm going to apply that law and I'm not going to apply Pritchard's law? A: I sure hope I'm going to. But, I know he's going to ask me can you guarantee me that.... Q: Well, I don't know if anybody's going to ask you to.... A: No. I can't guarantee anything. Pritchard's stubborn refusal to guarantee or commit to his ability to follow the law provided a solid basis for a cause challenge. This was particularly problematic because he refused to state that he would accept the law as provided by the court concerning the imposition of penalties. Moreover, Pritchard was clearly predisposed to vote for the death penalty in any premeditated murder case, even a case which was a second degree murder. Furthermore, Pritchard refused to state definitively that he would put aside this opinion in order to serve as a juror. His answers were substantially worse than those of the juror in Ross, therefore, if the juror in Ross was unfit to serve on the basis of his responses, Pritchard's answers absolutely rendered him unfit. Clearly, Pritchard was not only unable to follow the law, he was also unable to serve impartially. The defendant's cause challenge should have been granted on this basis. La. C.Cr.P. art. 797 §§ (2), (4). [7]