Opinion ID: 864456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the jury was tainted by pretrial

Text: PUBLICITY. ¶21. Moody contends that the trial judge erred by failing to admonish the jury venire not to talk about the case or watch television reports regarding it. At the end of the first day of jury voir dire on March 26, 2001, the trial judge admittedly forgot to admonish the jury venire not to watch television or read newspaper accounts of the trial during the overnight 13 recess. The next day, after several preliminary matters had been discussed with the judge and attorneys, and after a group of jurors were excused by the trial court by agreement of counsel, Moody, through counsel, then moved to strike the entire jury venire, which was not sequestered, on the basis that on the previous evening there had been extensive media television coverage of the case on at least one, and possibly two, Gulf Coast television stations.7 Once this matter was brought to Judge McKenzie’s attention, he conducted specific voir dire to determine what jurors had been exposed to media coverage. In so doing, Judge McKenzie, out of an abundance of caution, divided the venire persons into two groups – those who had gained knowledge of the case by discussion or through the media, and those who had heard nothing about the case. After extensive voir dire over the course of seven (7) days, and the dismissal of numerous prospective jurors who had outside knowledge of the case, the trial jury which was eventually seated consisted of only two jurors who had any knowledge of the case, and both of those jurors, in response to questioning, had assured the trial court that they could render fair and impartial verdicts based solely on the evidence and the law. Once the trial jury was seated and before the actual trial began, Judge McKenzie instructed the jurors in detail as to their conduct, including the fact that while sequestered 7 The Mississippi Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules (URCCC) govern the conduct of trials in our circuit and county courts. URCCC 10.02 mandates jury sequestration only where the State seeks to impose the death penalty; otherwise, jury sequestration in criminal cases is vested in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Certainly here, since the State was seeking the death penalty against Moody, the trial judge was required to, and did in fact, sequester the trial jury. However, sequestration of the entire jury venire is neither practical nor required by the rule. 14 at a motel, they would have television access, but that the news channels had been “taken off” the televison sets in the rooms. ¶22. We have held that judicial determination of whether a juror is fair and impartial will not be set aside unless such determination is clearly wrong. Smith v. State, 802 So.2d 82, 86 (Miss. 2001). ¶23. Moody complains of a tainted jury pool and argues that the entire panel should have been stricken after the trial judge's failure to admonish the jury pool on the first day.8 Even after the judge divided those who had heard about the case in the media from those who had not, Moody was still not satisfied. The trial jury, consisting of twelve regular members and two alternates, was empaneled after extensive voir dire and the subsequent sequestration and individual questioning of media-exposed and non-media exposed jurors. Of the actual jurors chosen, Moody argued that Johnny Jefferson and Shellie O'Keefe had outside knowledge of the facts of the case.9 ¶24. The individual voir dire of Johnny Jefferson revealed absolutely nothing prejudicial. He basically testified that he recognized one of Moody's attorneys, William Kirksey, on a 8 In fact, during the course of the extensive voir dire, and after the jury venire’s exposure to media coverage, Moody, through counsel, made no less than three (3) motions to quash the jury panel due to the media exposure. 9 Moody complained of a number of venire members having outside knowledge, all of whom were stricken, except for O'Keefe and Jefferson. Because the peremptory challenge issue is discussed in the following issue, we discuss only Jefferson and O'Keefe, who were selected to serve on the jury. 15 television report. He testified to no specific facts about the case and testified he could be fair and impartial. ¶25. Juror Shellie O'Keefe revealed in her individual voir dire that she had heard about the case: A: I heard that there had been two murders, and that two gentlemen were involved – something about being cousins. I don't know if the two people that were killed were cousins or the two people that killed the other two people were cousins; that there was a woman involved, that she was raped – something about with a pipe down her throat or something, that's all I heard. ¶26. O'Keefe testified that no names were mentioned in the news accounts, and she stated during cross-examination that she harbored no ill-will toward Moody, nor had she formed an opinion of any type. ¶27. In Porter v. State, 616 So.2d 899, 906 (Miss. 1993), we held, [t]hese promises of the venire members must be given considerable deference. (citing Scott v. Ball, 595 So.2d 848, 850 (Miss. 1992)). In Porter, we upheld the trial court's refusal to strike twenty venire members for cause simply because they had been shocked, upset, or bothered by hearing about the case. They testified to the trial court that they had not been prejudiced by hearing about the case and could decide the case on the evidence and the law. ¶28. Both the State and Moody cite Earley v. State, 595 So.2d 430, 431 (Miss. 1992) as precedent explaining what to do if a juror reads a newspaper article about a pending case. In Earley, the trial judge, prior to adjourning for the day, also forgot to admonish the jury 16 about reading anything concerning the case. When court reconvened the next day, the trial judge asked if any of the jurors had read anything about the case. Four jurors had gained information about the case. The judge polled each juror individually and alone and discovered only one to have read anything which could have been perceived as detrimental. That juror was excused. We held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by failing to grant a mistrial where jurors had read a newspaper account of the case. Because the trial judge dismissed the offending juror and gave curative instructions, we affirmed Earley's conviction. Moody argues here that there should have been similar action in this case. However, Earley and the case sub judice are not factually analogous. In Earley, the juror was dismissed for reading a newspaper article after the jury had been seated. The actions which Moody argue constitute error in the case sub judice happened during voir dire. Moreover, the juror in Earley, after the trial began, had read information in the newspaper about potentially prejudicial comments made outside the presence of the jury. ¶29. In the case before us today, O'Keefe had heard extraneous facts about the case before she had actually been selected for the jury. She testified she never knew the names involved and had not formed an opinion about the case at all. The offending juror in Earley read an article in the newspaper about the specific case and about specific portions of the case which obviously a reporter had heard, but the jury had not. Id. at 432. ¶30. The State correctly cites Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 111 S.Ct. 1899, 114 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1991), for the proposition that the purpose of voir dire is to enable the court 17 to select an impartial jury and to assist counsel in its use of peremptory challenges. Mu'Min held that the question is not whether members of the jury pool had heard of a particular case through the media, but whether the potential juror had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant. Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 430; 111 S.Ct. at 1908. The Mu'Min Court explicitly stated that jurors need not be completely ignorant of the facts and issues involved. Id. ¶31. Interestingly, the United States Supreme Court rejected Mu'Min's contention that because eight of the twelve jurors finally seated in his case had read or heard something about his case, his due process rights had been violated. In the case sub judice, only two of the trial jury members had heard anything about the case and Moody did not demonstrate that he was seriously or irreparably damaged by the vague details the two jury members had heard. According, this issue is without merit.