Opinion ID: 2277244
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Overall Adequacy of Voir Dire

Text: Defendant next argues that even if the trial court was not constitutionally required to permit attorney-conducted voir dire, its questioning of the jurors was so inadequate as to violate defendant's federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial. We disagree. An impartial jury is, of course, a necessary condition to a fair trial, and a voir dire designed to expose potential bias is essential to ensure an impartial jury. State v. Williams (Williams II), 113 N.J. 393 (1988). Generally, moreover, an appellate court should defer to the trial court's decisions about the voir dire. Id. at 410; State v. Singletary, 80 N.J. 55, 62-64 (1979). In the instant case, before seating or questioning a potential juror, the court required each juror to complete a questionnaire outlining his or her occupation, as well as familiarity with the case, experience with the criminal justice system, and prior relationship with any of the participants. Before commencing the individual questioning, the court instructed the panel about the presumption of innocence and the general structure of a bifurcated capital trial. The court then conducted the voir dire on the basis of the responses to the written questions. Next, the court questioned each juror on his or her opinion of the death penalty. Finally, the court asked the juror whether or not he or she believed that every murder is outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhumane, and whether or not the juror believed that evidence of a prior criminal conviction suggested that a defendant was guilty of the offense with which he or she was charged. The court then asked counsel to propose further questions, and submitted many of the proposed questions to the jurors. To support the claim that the trial court's voir dire was inadequate, defendant points to the questioning of three jurors: Gerald Siefring, Julius DiGiacomo, and Ethel Brush. Defendant claims that the court did not sufficiently interrogate juror Siefring, a former postal inspector, about his prior relationship with possible police witnesses or about his relationship with his brother, who is a patrolman with the Delaware River Port Authority, or his uncle, who is a detective with the Camden County Prosecutor's Office. In response to a question from the court, Siefring stated that he would more readily believe the police officers whom he knew. On further probing, however, the juror stated that he would evaluate the facts objectively and not necessarily give the police the benefit of the doubt. The juror also stated that the fact his brother and uncle worked in law enforcement would not subject him to pressure to find the defendants guilty. Finally, the juror indicated that he had met the prosecutor once about six or seven years ago when the prosecutor was investigating a mail fraud case. On further questioning, however, he indicated these facts would not affect his ability to determine the matter fairly. After the court finished questioning juror Siefring, Hunt's defense counsel stated that he had no objection to the juror being preliminarily qualified. Thompson's attorney, however, unsuccessfully objected to the juror for cause. Defendant now points to the response by the trial court as indicative that the court improperly believed it could not reject the juror's claim of impartiality: THE COURT: All right. Well, the Court is not willing to make a judgment as to whether this person is telling the truth. And you will look at the facts from your point of view. The prosecutor is looking at them from another point of view. My point of view is whether I can rule as a matter of law that he was not a proper juror. And based upon that which is expressed upon that record, I do not conclude that I can so rule. Of course, that is the reason that we have the peremptory challenge, and I have curbed him in response to the question so that you could have enough facts before you to make intelligent choices as to whether to keep him. The fact remains, however, that the juror, in response to probing questions from the court, repeatedly asserted his ability to be impartial. We are satisfied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Siefring could be impartial. Defendant also alleges that the voir dire of juror DiGiacomo was insufficient to reveal that juror's potential bias. Specifically, defendant claims that the trial court erroneously denied defense counsel's motion to dismiss this juror for cause when the juror indicated that he believed that evidence of a prior conviction suggested that a defendant was guilty of the present charge. The trial court, however, instructed the juror that his function is to listen to evidence and then decide whether the defendant is guilty of the charge that he is presently before you on and not what he did [in the past]. In response, the juror stated that he would follow the instruction. Although the trial court denied defense counsel's motion to excuse the juror, it granted a similar motion by the State because of the juror's bias against the government. We find no merit in defendant's contention that the voir dire of this juror was inadequate and that the trial court wrongly refused to excuse the juror for cause for the reason asserted by defendant. Finally, defendant challenges the voir dire of juror Brush as insufficient to assess her impartiality because she equivocated about the presumption of innocence. Following the court's questioning of this juror, Thompson's attorney urged the court to ask the juror if she believed that a defendant is more likely guilty because he or she is charged with murder in a capital-penalty case. The court refused because it believed that the question already had been answered in the negative. When conducting a follow-up examination of the juror, however, the court closely questioned her regarding the presumption of innocence. Because the juror's responses indicated that she would not afford defendants the presumption of innocence, the court granted defense counsel's motion to excuse the juror for cause. The court's conduct lends no support to the proposition that the voir dire was inadequate. In sum, we believe that the court's voir dire interrogation was sufficiently probing to expose potential bias of the jurors. Although the interrogation was less searching than that requested by counsel, we are satisfied that the voir dire was sufficiently thorough to assure the selection of an impartial jury. Biegenwald II, supra, 106 N.J. at 29.