Opinion ID: 863196
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Vellana Davis

Text: Q: Could you ever really consider giving the death penalty to someone if he didn't murder a child? A: No, I couldn't. Q: So if you want to give somebody a really harsh punishment, is it your thinking it would be better to send them to Parchman for life rather than just let them go to sleep? A: Yes. ¶31. This Court recognizes that it is often difficult for a juror to express in precise terms his or her feelings about, understanding of, and willingness to impose the death penalty. Simon, 688 So. 2d at 800. The difficulty of verbally expressing such views, of course, makes the interpretation of the juror's voir dire extremely difficult. Id. Accordingly, we look to not only the ruling but the setting and time devoted to the questions, and the opportunity of sequestered voir dire. Id. In the present case, the testimony of all four jurors, although somewhat contradictory at points, seemed to indicate opposition to the death penalty. It was therefore not unreasonable for the trial court to conclude these jurors might be unable to apply the law or view the facts impartially. As stated previously, deference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror. Underwood, 708 So. 2d at 28. Accordingly, this Court finds the record supports the trial court's removal of these veniremen.