Opinion ID: 2135985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Relating to the Right to a Fair and Impartial Jury

Text: Although the jurors were administered a juror's oath prior to the commencement of opening statement and the presentation of evidence, no oath was administered prior to their voir dire questioning. Defendant contends that the Jury Act requires prospective jurors to be sworn in prior to voir dire, and that since the trial court did not administer such an oath prior to the questioning he was denied his constitutional and statutory right to a fair and impartial jury. Out of the jurors who were ultimately selected to sit on the case four of them stated that they had previously read or heard about the case but that they could still be fair and impartial. Defendant argues that this assertion by the four jurors is insufficient to guarantee a fair trial since they were not under oath at the time the statements were made. In order to preserve an issue for appeal, it must both be objected to at the time of the alleged error and set out with specificity in a prompt post-trial motion. Although defendant raised his issue in his final amended post-trial motion, he failed to raise it during voir dire itself. Thus, the issue has been waived. Regardless however of defendant's waiver, defendant's claim lacks merit. The Jury Act, in addressing challenges to prospective jurors, provides: It shall not be a cause of challenge that a juror has read in the newspapers an account of the commission of the crime with which the prisoner is charged, if such juror shall state on oath that he believes he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence. In the trial of any criminal cause, the fact that a person called as a juror has formed an opinion or impression, based upon rumor or upon newspaper statements (about the truth of which he has expressed no opinion,) shall not disqualify him to serve as a juror in such case, if he shall upon oath state that he believes he can fairly and impartially render a verdict therein, in accordance with the law and the evidence and the court shall be satisfied of the truth of such statement. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 78, par. 14.) Contrary to defendant's assertion, this oath does not have to be given prior to voir dire questioning of all prospective jurors. While the decision to accept a potential juror as an impartial trier of fact is discretionary with the trial judge, the trial judge is obliged to insure that the defendant receives a trial before a fair and impartial jury. ( People v. Taylor (1984), 101 Ill.2d 377, 386-87, 78 Ill.Dec. 359, 462 N.E.2d 478.) Additionally, however, it is the responsibility of each party to challenge venire members whom they wish to have removed from the pool of potential jurors. The challenges can be either for cause, or by way of a peremptory challenges. Once it becomes apparent that a venire member has been exposed to pretrial publicity, both sides have the opportunity to require the venire member to take an oath stating that he or she can fairly and impartially render a verdict. However, there is no requirement that a blanket oath be given in all situations without even a request. There is no simple test to determine juror impartiality in every case. It is necessary for each potential juror to be questioned to determine whether he has preconceived beliefs regarding a defendant's guilt. While the oath contained in section 14 of the Jury Act would aid in making this determination, the trial court is not obligated to administer this oath without it being requested. Additionally, the defendant has failed to point to any evidence which calls into question the veracity of the answers given by the potential jurors. On the totality of the record in this case, we are satisfied that the trial court conducted a meaningful and thorough voir dire and that the jurors who were ultimately selected fairly and impartially rendered a verdict. In a related argument, defendant claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to make a timely objection necessary to preserve this issue and by not requiring the oath to be administered. This argument is without merit, because as we have noted, defendant, in this case, received a fair and impartial jury even in the absence of the oath. Defendant also contends that he was denied a fair and impartial jury since it was not revealed until after trial that one of the jurors, 10 years prior to trial, had attended law school with the prosecutor. During voir dire of the prospective jurors, the trial court asked whether any of them knew Lisa Porter, the assistant State's Attorney who was prosecuting the case. Juror Kathleen Moore, a practicing attorney, responded in the affirmative. In questioning Moore, it came out that she knew the prosecutor from her current practice as an attorney in a private firm, and also due to the fact that she previously worked as a public defender in the same courthouse as the prosecutor. Additionally, Moore stated that one of her associates had told her that he had a conversation with defendant's family members. She had no idea what had been discussed and told the court that it would not affect her ability to be fair. Defense counsel challenged juror Moore for cause on the grounds that it would be unfair to have an attorney sit as a juror in a capital case, and that because Moore was a friend of the prosecutor. The prosecutor objected, noting that defense counsel's statements lacked merit. The trial court denied the challenge for cause. Having lost his challenge for cause, defense counsel accepted Moore as a juror and elected not to use one of his remaining peremptory challenges. In defendant's post-trial motions, he alleged that he had just become aware of the fact that the prosecuting attorney and juror Moore had both attended Washington University Law School. Attorney Porter responded to defendant's allegations by stating to the trial court that she attended St. Louis University School of Law. After the post-trial motions had been disposed of, attorney Porter told the appellate defender that she had attended law school with juror Moore. Based upon this evidence, defendant claims that he is entitled to have the case remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. Where a defendant does not learn of facts which might support a finding of partiality by a juror until after a verdict, a post-trial evidentiary hearing may be necessary. The defendant, however, in seeking an evidentiary hearing bears the burden to introduce and offer specific, detailed and nonconjectural evidence in support of his position. In the absence of such evidence, an evidentiary hearing is not warranted. ( People v. Witte (1983), 115 Ill.App.3d 20, 30, 70 Ill.Dec. 619, 449 N.E.2d 966.) In the instant case, defendant has offered no proof of juror bias other than the fact that 10 years prior to trial the prosecuting attorney and one of the jurors attended law school together. This evidence, by itself, adds nothing in the way of establishing juror bias. It had already been established during voir dire that juror Moore was an attorney, and that she knew the prosecuting attorney. In fact, juror Moore stated that she was previously employed as a public defender and had worked in the same courthouse as the prosecuting attorney. The bare fact that juror Moore and the prosecuting attorney attended the same law school 10 years before lacks significance when viewed with the facts which were established during voir dire. There has been no evidence to suggest that this new evidence was intentionally concealed or was even known to juror Moore or attorney Porter at the time of the trial. Thus, we conclude that defendant has failed to offer detailed, nonconjectural evidence supporting a conclusion of juror bias and that the defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon this issue.