Opinion ID: 522207
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prospective Juror Bradshaw

Text: 14 Ellis argues that, because Bradshaw's answers to defense counsel's questions showed that he was qualified to serve on the jury under Witherspoon and Adams, the trial court's exclusion of him for cause was erroneous. Ellis asserts that the trial court set out to disqualify Bradshaw by taking over the voir dire and pointing out ways in which he could avoid jury service and that this conduct deprived the defendant of a full and fair hearing on the matter of juror qualification and stripped the trial court's findings of the presumption of correctness to which they normally would be entitled. 15 The evaluation of this contention requires study of the entire voir dire in which Bradshaw was involved. That begins with the introductory remarks the trial court made to the group of venire members before individual voir dire began. The court explained that those persons selected to serve on the jury would have to take an oath to render their verdict according to the law and the evidence. He emphasized that if any of the prospective jurors disagreed with some aspect of the law to the extent that they could not take the oath to follow the law, they would not be qualified to serve. The court made it plain, though, that mere disagreement with the law did not automatically disqualify one from serving as a juror. Even if a person disagreed with the law as it was explained, if you can set that aside and still be fair and impartial then you may still be qualified to be a juror. After explaining that taking the juror's oath was a very serious matter and that knowingly violating the oath would subject a person to severe penalties, the court made the following statements: 16 So we are not going to make anybody, force anyone to take an oath that they can't follow. You see what I am saying? So that's why we are going back to this thing if you disagree with the law, if you disagree with the law of the indictment to the extent and degree that it is going to destroy your conscience or soul, we are not going to make you take the oath. 17 The trial court began Bradshaw's individual voir dire by asking if he had religious, moral or conscientious scruples against the infliction of death as a punishment for a crime in a proper case. Bradshaw answered yes. The prosecutor then took over the questioning; he first asked Bradshaw if he would put in his own words his feelings about the death penalty: 18 A. The way I feel about it--say, if he did take someone's life, taking his life is not going to bring him back. So that's the eye for an eye thing and I just-- 19 Q. [Prosecutor] You go for the two wrongs don't equal a right? 20 A. That's right. 21 Q. Now, I take it that's a pretty strong feeling you have; is that correct? 22 A. Ever since, you know, I have been old enough and all to really think about it I have felt that way so I would say yes. 23