Opinion ID: 2265144
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timothy Wedeen

Text: Defendant contends that the court incorrectly excused prospective-juror Timothy Wedeen from the jury pool. According to defendant, Mr. Wedeen did not articulate personal opinions that would prevent him from carrying out his oath as a juror. We disagree. Mr. Wedeen expressed significant doubts about his ability to impose a death sentence under any circumstances. Q. What are your feelings about the death penalty? A. I don't agree with it. Capital punishment is barbaric. Q. Are there any crimes that you think it is appropriate to impose the death penalty? A. No, I do not. Q. None at all? A. Not really, no. I feel life without parole is a more appropriate measure. Q. Well, you understand that you'd be placed under oath and you would have a duty to perform, that would be to listen to the evidence, accept the legal principles as the Court explains them to you. Do you understand that? A. Yes, I do. Q. And once having taken such an oath, if the facts warrant it and the principles warrant it, those combined, they warranted the imposition of the death penalty, would you be able to impose the death penalty? A. I would find it difficult. My judgment would be affected by my personal feelings. I could not say that it wouldn't. We recognize that Mr. Wedeen stated in response to questions from defense counsel that he could follow his oath as a juror and vote for a death sentence if the evidence warranted such a finding. However, the prospective juror immediately expressed reluctance in response to questions from the prosecutor. Q.    What we're trying to find out is whether or not you would be able to follow what the Court is going to be asking you to do should this matter reach the penalty phase. Now, do you understand what I'm talking about.         A.    The answer to your question, if I'm picked for jury duty and the law says I have to make a fair decision, I will. Q. Would you be able to make that decision based on the facts in the case putting aside your personal feelings? A. I don't know. I honestly do not know. I feel very strongly about this issue. Finally, in response to an inquiry from the trial court, Mr. Wedeen related that his judgment would be impaired by his beliefs regarding capital punishment. Q.    We're just trying to find out your honest views so that we have a jury who will listen to the evidence and make the decision based on the evidence and the proofs posed. I know it's difficult when you have strong feelings one way or another about a certain case. A. My judgment would be impaired by my feelings, yes. I have to be honest and say yes, it would when it comes to that issue. I wish I could say otherwise but that's how I feel. Over the objection of defense counsel, the trial court excused Mr. Wedeen. Concerning Mr. Wedeen's responses the court concluded: If he is not telling us that his ability to impose the death penalty may be impaired by his beliefs, he's at least telling us, `I don't know.' Mr. Wedeen's response was like that of the prospective juror in State v. Pennington, 119 N.J. 547, 575 A. 2d 816 (1990), who stated that if the law conflicted with her conscience, she would follow conscience. Id. at 589, 575 A. 2d 816. We found no error in her excusal. Ibid. The trial court is afforded substantial deference in its determinations concerning the qualification of prospective jurors. State v. Hunt, supra, 115 N.J. at 362, 558 A. 2d 1259. Because Mr. Wedeen indicated that his emotions would control his penalty-phase deliberations, his excusal for cause was well within the trial court's discretion.