Opinion ID: 159762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: improper removal of three jurors for cause

Text: Petitioner argues the trial court violated her constitutional rights by improperly removing three jurors--Celam Vaughn, Cheryl K. Morgan, and Thomas J. Maciula--for cause at the State’s request. On direct criminal appeal, the Oklahoma appellate court concluded the trial court properly excused these jurors for cause because Mr. Vaughn was irrevocably opposed to the death penalty, Ms. Morgan continually expressed doubts about her ability to be impartial in light of her personal experiences, and Mr. Maciula’s religious views prevented him from being fair and impartial. See Plantz, 876 P.2d at 278-79. The federal district court agreed. Mr. Vaughn initially stated he could not agree to a verdict imposing the death penalty, but he could possibly consider it, even though he did not believe in taking the life of another person. After further questioning, he stated he did not believe he could give equal consideration to the law. Bryson’s attorney requested -25- and was given an opportunity to rehabilitate Mr. Vaughn. During that questioning, Mr. Vaughn indicated that to the best of his ability he would follow the law and listen to the evidence, but he would be opposed to the death penalty and following the law would depend on his personal beliefs, which he did not believe the State could persuade him to change. Finally, he conceded that his mind was made up. The record is clear that Mr. Vaughn would listen to the evidence but he would not consider imposing the death penalty. See Morgan, 504 U.S. at 728 (holding juror who would not vote for death penalty is not impartial and must be removed for cause). Ms. Morgan’s husband was in prison for rape and robbery. She expressed concern over her husband’s well being, apparently with respect to Bryson. At one time, she indicated that she was open-minded and would consider all possible punishments. Later, however, she stated she would try to be fair but would be sympathetic towards the defendants. Ms. Morgan’s concern for her husband’s welfare, as well as her sympathy for the defendants, would have prevented or substantially impaired performance of her duties as a juror. Mr. Maciula initially expressed religious concerns about the death penalty, but indicated he could consider and impose the death penalty in an appropriate case. Later, he stated that he was not certain he could consider the death penalty and he could not consider all three punishments. It is clear that Mr. Maciula’s -26- religious beliefs precluded him from considering the death penalty. See Morgan, 504 U.S. at 728. Petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption of correctness afforded to the trial court’s finding that these prospective jurors’ views would have prevented or substantially impaired his or her performance of the duties of a juror. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ determination was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.