Opinion ID: 2428908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ISSUE 21: Jurors who had formed an opinion of guilt based on pretrial publicity.

Text: 1) Gilbert Hall admitted having read in the newspaper the story that was told by Mr. Morton ... to the police after he was arrested. He then was asked: DEFENSE COUNSEL: ... Do you think that would affect you and maybe make you more likely to believe him [Morton] if he gets on the stand and tells it again? HALL: Well, yes. The court then elicited responses to rehabilitate this expression of bias, but failure to sustain the challenge for cause falls far short of the standards we set for guaranteeing a neutral jury in Montgomery v. Commonwealth, supra . Gilbert Hall was struck by peremptory challenge, no doubt because the defense concluded pretrial publicity had prejudiced his opinion. 2) McCray Amburgey: DEFENSE COUNSEL: What have you heard about the case the best you recall? AMBURGEY: I just heard that he killed the woman and cut her up and set the house afire I guess. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Did that cause you to have an opinion as to whether he's more likely to have done it or not? AMBURGEY: Well, I don't know. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Would you be able at this time to honestly presume him to be innocent at this point? AMBURGEY: No. Not at this point, no. DEFENSE COUNSEL: You understand that under the law right now he's presumed to be innocent? AMBURGEY: Yeah, I understand that. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Because of what you've heard, if I'm getting this right, you don't think that you could presume him to be innocent at this point? AMBURGEY: No, not right now. Not this far in the case. When the defense then challenged Amburgey for cause, the court undertook to rehabilitate him by explaining that under the law any defendant, this Defendant, is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and elicited a response from Amburgey that I understand that. The challenge for cause was overruled. Amburgey was struck by peremptory challenge, no doubt by the defense. In addition to Hall and Amburgey, challenges for cause based on knowledge of the case gleaned from pretrial publicity were made and overruled for at least eight more jurors: Larry Dixon, Helen Ratliff, Marvis Short, Dean Craft, Simon Fields, Robert Adams, Paul Gayheart and Paul Prater, because of positively answered questions suggesting they would try to be impartial despite their previous knowledge.