Opinion ID: 1059329
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Juror Estep

Text: The morning after Sergeant Timbrook was shot, juror Estep's mother called him at college, where he was studying criminal justice, and told him about the incident. She also sent him newspaper clippings about it. One of Estep's best friends was a correctional officer and worked where Bell was being detained. In a telephone conversation with his friend, Estep inquired whether his friend had seen Bell. The friend indicated that he had, but Estep and his friend did not discuss Bell or the case any further. When questioned about the conversation, Estep stated, It wasn't as if I called him and was picking his brain to see what he knew. Estep acknowledged that his interest in criminal justice sparked [his] interest in this case, but he stated that his career goal to work as a law enforcement officer or an insurance company investigator would not affect his ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror. When asked to describe his view of somebody who would commit an offense such as the one at issue, Estep stated, I wouldn't say madman. You know, just kind of your Hollywood type that you would see in the movies. In denying Bell's motion to strike juror Estep for cause, the circuit court made the following findings: THE COURT: I do think Mr. Estep has given candid and forthright responses. I think this is the type of case which is going to interest any number of people for a lot of reasons. It is a big case, if you want to put it that way. It is the type of thing that citizens who are interested in the affairs of the community would, indeed, be interested in for any number of reasons. Mr. Estep has particular interest. And, that is he is a criminal justice major and I understand why it would be of interest for him. That is the circumstances and the people involved. He did indicate that he, when he first heard about it he had a preconceived notion of what the defendant would be like. He also readily acknowledged that preconceived notion could be wrong. And, the way I read it, he really didn't give much weight to that preconceived notion at all. I suppose any time you are reading about a set of circumstances of which you are not personally involved, or about people that you do not know, all of us form some sort of notion about what happened or something about the people involved. That can be readily dispelled. That is the way I read Mr. Estep. He acknowledged those things, but he also indicated through his responses, that he understands his responsibilities as a juror and that he can hear the case and decide the case fairly and impartially. Just because he has particular interest in this field doesn't disqualify him. And,[from] his responses, the question he asks his friend about Mr. Bell was fairly benign and did not go into any details. So, I don't see how that really prejudices him. We agree with these conclusions. And, the record supports the court's findings. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike juror Estep.