Opinion ID: 2106520
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Potential Jurors:

Text: Juror # 1  Question: So you are saying you would automatically vote against the imposition of the death penalty? Answer: Yes. Juror # 2  Question: Do you have a fixed opinion against the death penalty? Answer: Yes, I think I do. Question: Would you say then that you would vote automatically against the imposition of the death penalty? Answer: The way I feel right now, yes, I would. I'd be against the death penalty. Juror # 3  Question: Are you saying that you would listen to this and whatever you heard when you went back to that room you would automatically vote against the death penalty? Answer: Yes. Juror # 4  Question: You said it would be hard. Could you explain that? Answer: I guess I . . . . don't think I can make that decision. Question: You don't believe that you could make the decision itself? Is that the problem? Answer: No, I think it would bother me. Juror # 5  Question: Have you as a result of anything that you read or anything that you have heard, formed an opinion concerning which punishment the defendant should receive? Answer: Not what I read; but of a matter of conscience, I would not be able to condemn a man to death. Juror # 6  Question: And, assume that the evidence so requires it, would you be able to return a verdict of the death penalty? Answer: I don't think so. Question: Well, could you vote for the death penalty? Answer: I don't think so. (N.T. 9/12/94 pp. 55, 68, 94, 160, 222 and 239). The record reveals an ample basis for the trial court's findings that the six individuals in question would have been, as a result of their preconceived beliefs or attitudes, substantially impaired in the performance of their duties as jurors. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in excluding these jurors. Thus, appellant's claim is meritless.