Opinion ID: 1494252
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: juror strikes for cause

Text: Appellant contends that four potential jurors were excluded from the venire panel in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the principles established in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), and Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992), and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. [20] We disagree. The trial court conducted voir dire from February 23-26, 1997, and excused four potential jurors from the panel. Appellant asserts that none of the four potential jurors had clearly demonstrated through their answers to questioning from counsel and the court that their views on the death penalty would prevent or substantially impair their ability to serve as jurors. We review the trial court's dismissal of the potential jurors for an abuse of discretion. Appellant argues that Fatima Johnson should not have been stricken for cause because she never indicated she would be unable to impose the death penalty. Relevant portions of Ms. Johnson's voir dire are as follows: The Court: Now, have you formed or do you have any general attitude about the death penalty or about capital punishment? Juror: No, I haven't formed anything, but wellI don't know if I could sentence anybody to death. I don't know if I could. Depends on what the outcome is going to be. I don't know.