Opinion ID: 788146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Voir Dire In This Case

Text: 12 In appellant's case, Judge Kram conducted an extensive voir dire designed to ensure an impartial jury. The process began with the district court judge asking potential jurors a series of general questions relating to their ability to remain impartial. She asked, for example, whether the jurors had any prior knowledge of the case, had any relationship to the defendant or the prosecutors, or otherwise felt they were biased for or against the defendant or the government. In the course of the jury selection, the trial court struck 15 prospective jurors for cause. 13 Prospective juror Roberto B. English informed the court that he lived on the same city block the government alleged was the site of the defendant's drug transaction; he had a brother who worked for the federal government in Maryland; and he was himself an attorney. When asked about his legal practice, English responded, Mainly do insurance litigation, some property subrogation. I do have a background in some criminal defense. I recently completed the federal criminal practice institute. The trial court went on to ask him several more questions and ultimately inquired whether he felt he could be a fair and impartial juror, to which English responded affirmatively. 14 The prosecution asked for further voir dire on this potential juror's criminal defense work. Assistant United States Attorney David Berardinelli was permitted to further interrogate English. The following exchange took place: 15 Q. Did you indicate that you did any criminal defense work? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. For whom? 18 A. Well, I'm admitted in New Jersey, and part of admission to New Jersey is pro bono assignments, usually criminal matters. I haven't gotten an assignment very recently, but occasionally that does come up. Prior to starting with the firm that I'm currently employed with ... I was in private practice where I did some criminal defense work. Mostly—all in the state court level. 19 .... 20 Q. Narcotics work? 21 A. No, no. No felonies. Usually misdemeanors, violations. But no felony work. 22 Q. I see. And you took a course in federal practice? 23 A. Yes, at the New York County Lawyers Association—it was about two weeks ago—for a federal criminal trial practice as kind of a precursor to admission to the CJA [Criminal Justice Act] Panel. 24 Q. I see. The CJA panel in this court? 25 A. Yes. 26 The prosecution thereafter moved to disqualify English for cause because of a potential for bias. Judge Kram disqualified English over the defense's objection. In her later ruling denying appellant's request for a new trial, she explained that English had been excused for cause after the Court inquired as to the extent of his criminal defense background. The prospective juror had represented pro bono clients in criminal cases in New Jersey state courts and had recently completed a course in federal criminal practice through the New York County Lawyers Association.