Opinion ID: 2069959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Alleged Failure to Rehabilitate Jurors Who Expressed Opposition to Death Penalty

Text: Johnson next asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to attempt to rehabilitate jurors who expressed opposition to the death penalty. Specifically, Johnson objects to the alleged failure of counsel to rehabilitate eleven jurors, each of whom the trial court struck for cause. During either general questioning or individual voir dire, each of the eleven jurors stated that they had beliefs that would prevent him or her from imposing the death penalty. It is well settled that whenever a juror's views on capital punishment would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath, he is properly excluded from the jury. Commonwealth v. Lark, 548 Pa. 441, 698 A.2d 43, 48 (1997) (citing Commonwealth v. Jasper, 531 Pa. 1, 610 A.2d 949, 952-53 (1992)) (internal quotation omitted). Additionally, [i]t is within the trial court's discretion to strike a juror for cause, and such a decision will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Rollins, 558 Pa. 532, 738 A.2d 435, 442 (1999) (citing Commonwealth v. Fisher, 545 Pa. 233, 681 A.2d 130 (1996)). The PCRA court reviewed the voir dire record and found it unlikely that counsel could have rehabilitated any of the eleven jurors. We have conducted an independent review of the transcripts and agree. Moreover, the PCRA court, which also sat as the original trial court, stated that, had trial counsel failed to agree to striking each of these jurors for cause, we would have struck them from the panel, as is our discretion to do. Therefore, it would have been futile for counsel to have attempted to rehabilitate these jurors. Opinion of the PCRA Court, February 23, 2001, page 24. Accordingly, we find no error in the decision of counsel to not attempt to rehabilitate these jurors.