Opinion ID: 787859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: juror bias in favor of the death penalty

Text: There may have been jury bias favoring death. Without a hearing we cannot be sure. The questions submitted by R.C. Schwartz, the jury foreman, indicate that he: (1) wanted at least to ensure that Davis would serve a life term without the possibility of parole; (2) believed that Davis would be paroled if given a life sentence; and (3) believed that imposing the death penalty would in fact achieve life without parole. The jury foreman may not have been biased in favor of a death sentence because he actually wanted Davis to die, but he was biased in favor of a death sentence because he believed it was the only way to achieve life without parole. Due process requires a a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). A court confronted with a colorable claim of juror bias must undertake an investigation of the relevant facts and circumstances. 7 Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc); see also Smith, 455 U.S. at 215, 102 S.Ct. 940([T]he remedy for allegations of juror partiality is a hearing in which the defendant has the opportunity to prove actual bias.). The trial court's investigation must be reasonably calculated to resolve the doubts raised about the juror's impartiality. Dyer, 151 F.3d at 974-75. The trial court's fact-finding process must be objective and must reasonably explore[ ] the issues presented. Id. at 975. In this case, the trial court conducted no hearing or investigation. The trial court never questioned the jury foreman about whether he could put his beliefs out of his mind in order to be fair and impartial. Defense counsel had no opportunity to probe the jury foreman's bias or to question him about impermissible discussions with other jurors. The trial court gave a curative instruction, but that instruction was of dubious value. The trial court instructed the jury that it should not consider parole and that it should assume the authorities would properly carry out their responsibilities, but it also confirmed the foreman's belief by stating that a future modification of Davis's sentence was possible. In doing so, the trial court drew the jury members' attention to the very issue — possibility of parole — that it then instructed them not to consider. 8