Opinion ID: 1936097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the circuit court failed to conduct and prevented defense counsel from conducting adequate voir dire of venire members

Text: Jackson next attacks the adequacy of the circuit court's questioning of jurors' attitudes toward the death penalty during voir dire. He contends that six black venire members were improperly dismissed before they could be questioned adequately by the defense and that there was a risk that others served who otherwise properly might have been excluded had he been allowed to question them more thoroughly. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968) provides that a sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction. Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 522, 88 S.Ct. at 1777, 20 L.Ed.2d at 784-785. Further, in Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992), the United States Supreme Court stated that the Witherspoon principles demand inquiry into whether the views of prospective jurors on the death penalty would disqualify them from sitting. Morgan, 504 U.S. at 731, 112 S.Ct. at 2231, 119 L.Ed.2d at 504. The standard to be followed is whether the juror's views `would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties in accordance with his instructions and his oath.' Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 433, 105 S.Ct. 844, 857, 83 L.Ed.2d 841, 857 (1985), quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2526, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980). In Wainwright, the Supreme Court further explained: this standard likewise does not require that a juror's bias be proved with `unmistakable clarity.' This is because determinations of juror bias cannot be reduced to question-and-answer sessions which obtain results in the manner of a catechism. What common sense should have realized experience has proved: many veniremen simply cannot be asked enough questions to reach the point where there bias has been made `unmistakably clear'; these veniremen may not know how they will react when faced with imposing the death sentence, or may be unable to articulate, or may wish to hide their true feelings. [footnote omitted]. Despite this lack of clarity in the printed record, however, there will be situations where the trial judge is left with the definite impression that a prospective juror would be unable to faithfully and impartially apply the law. For reasons that will be developed more fully infra, this is why deference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror. Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 424-26, 105 S.Ct. at 852-53, 83 L.Ed.2d at 852-853. The standards articulated in Wainwright were adopted by this Court in Fuselier v. State, 468 So.2d 45, 53 (Miss. 1985). In Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114 (Miss. 1991), we reiterated the importance of fully developing jurors' views toward the death penalty, stating [w]e have directed that, notwithstanding a prospective juror's scruples, the court should inquire further whether the juror would follow its instructions and a fair verdict render according to the law and the evidence. Id. at 128. See also, Fuselier, 468 So.2d at 53-55. Further, while the circuit court is expected to take the lead in conducting the Witherspoon voir dire in death penalty cases, this does not mean that counsel does not also have a role. Hansen, 592 So.2d at 128-129. Thus, in Hansen, where the circuit court expressly refused to allow the defendant's attorney to voir dire two venire members who had expressed opposition to the death penalty, we stated: There appears no escape from the fact that the Circuit Court erred when it denied counsel's request for voir dire examinations of jurors Hulitt and Nichols. [citations omitted]. On the other hand, the answers these two jurors gave are substantially clear, and it appears reasonably certain that each was Witherspoon -excludable. As we may do, we afford a measure of deference on this point to the court that saw and heard the jurors. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. at 426, 105 S.Ct. at 853, 83 L.Ed.2d at 853; Woodward v. State, 533 So.2d 418, 424 (Miss. 1988). Speculating, but with the aid of a touch of common sense, we regard the likelihood that voir dire examination by defense counsel would have rehabilitated these jurors to bring them out of Witherspoon is, on this record, rather slim. We hold the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that, as such, it does not require reversal. Hansen, 592 So.2d at 129. Our examination of the record indicates only that the circuit court declined to allow Jackson's attorney to repeat questions in his own words to the prospective jurors during the court's voir dire. The circuit judge, however, did attempt to rephrase his questions as requested by the defense. Further, Jackson's attorney did not request permission to further question the jurors; he objected only to their dismissal. Even assuming arguendo that the circuit court erred in not allowing the defense to rephrase and pose the questions to the jury, a common sense interpretation of the record, as urged by Wainwright and Hansen, does not indicate that further questioning would have rehabilitated the six venire members who expressed their opposition to the death penalty. Moreover, Jackson's attorney conducted his own extensive voir dire of the remaining venire members regarding the death penalty, refuting his contention that there existed a risk of seating jurors who might have been unduly biased in favor of the death penalty. We find no error here. Jackson further argues that the circuit court erred in refusing to allow him to question individually a venire member who was a justice court judge running for reelection. However, he cites no authority and presents no meaningful argument to support this assignment of error. Accordingly, we do not consider it. Russell v. State, 607 So.2d 1107, 1117 (Miss. 1992).