Opinion ID: 2428128
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Witherspoon - Witt

Text: The prosecutor questioned members of the venire as to whether they would consider a sentence of life imprisonment if the defendant were convicted. Several said that they would be willing to consider life imprisonment after hearing the evidence. The prosecutor sought to exclude these jurors or to get them to make a further commitment, saying that jurors had to be willing to consider the range of punishment up front. The assertion is strange, and I find no support for the prosecutor's statement that this is the law of Missouri. Jurors should not consider any issue until they have heard the evidence. Those jurors who indicated unwillingness to make a decision until hearing the evidence simply expressed a requirement that all jurors should impose. The prosecutor's suggestions might present dangers in a case governed by Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), and Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). Even though we conclude that there is no Witherspoon - Witt problem in this case, I believe that it is appropriate to comment on a matter which came up in the course of the trial and which, if carelessly applied in a capital case, might result in an unnecessary reversal. With these observations, I concur.