Opinion ID: 2265144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of Overall Voir Dire

Text: Jury selection took place over a seventeen-day period. The trial court and counsel individually questioned two-hundred and nine venirepersons. The voir dire resulted in fifty-five qualified jurors being selected. Neither side exhausted its peremptory challenges. We have previously outlined what we consider to be effective means of carrying out a capital-cause voir dire. In State v. Erazo, supra, 126 N.J. at 128-29, 594 A. 2d 232, we summarized that voir dire in a capital cause should be open-ended, thorough and searching, sensitive to attorney participation, and designed to elicit a potential juror's views, biases, and inclinations. Here, the trial court fulfilled all those requirements. It asked open-ended, thorough and searching questions designed to elicit a juror's biases and allowed defense counsel to participate extensively. An important ingredient in voir dire inquiry is the use of open-ended questions, which in our opinion are most likely to provide counsel and the court with insight into jurors' opinions and biases. Williams II, supra, 113 N.J. at 413, 550 A. 2d 1172. The trial court employed that technique extensively during voir dire. Typical of the court's approach is the following colloquy the court engaged in with prospective-juror Robert J. Salemo, using open-ended questions to elicit his thoughts on the death penalty. Q. Would you tell me if you have any personal opinions, beliefs or feelings about the death penalty? A. I have a lot of conflicting personal opinions. Q. Why don't you tell us about them. We want you to be free. A. On the one hand I think it's a very cruel issue but on the other hand  and I guess at the same time people who are proponents of it often refer to it as a deterrent. I don't necessarily view it as a deterrent but I can accept it as a law. I can accept the implementation of it as a law for those crimes for which it is a law. Q. And do you believe there are appropriate  as a result do you believe there are appropriate crimes that are appropriate for the death penalty? A. Yes, I do. Q. Can you tell us what they are? A. I think that crimes of major violence, particularly where there may be a situation of repeated history of convictions of some sort. I think that major problems perhaps in drug related cases would be appropriate. I think those are really the only ones that immediately come to mind where I think it would be appropriate. Q. You mean other than murder? A. Well, I think that there would have to be a certain set of circumstances that at least from where I sit, that would make you feel that capital punishment would be appropriate in the case. I think there are perhaps some cases where a murder would be committed where I wouldn't necessarily think the circumstances warranted capital punishment but there would be others where I would think it would be. Unlike the deficient voir dire in Biegenwald IV, in the voir dire here the trial court did not suggest[]    that there is a `correct' answer to the open-ended question `what are your views on the death penalty?' See 126 N.J. at 39, 594 A. 2d 172. Instead, the court allowed prospective jurors to elaborate on their beliefs without prodding or suggestive comments. Here, [t]he trial court did not employ a rigid slot-defining format such as that described in [ Williams II, supra, 113 N.J. at 414, 550 A. 2d 1172] (automatic life, automatic death, all others), but very often asked a completely open-ended question of jurors focusing on whether they had any attitudes or opinions at all concerning the imposition of the death penalty. It did not attempt to force the jurors into any mode. [ State v. Dixon, supra, 125 N.J. at 246, 593 A. 2d 266.] Furthermore, unlike the voir dire in Biegenwald IV, not only did the trial court here assure itself that the potential juror[s] would remain open to the option of life imprisonment, 126 N.J. at 40, 594 A. 2d 172, defense counsel also stressed that issue during his examination of the prospective jurors. The voir dire also adequately educate[d] the potential jurors concerning the laws of New Jersey relative to murder and capital punishment. Id. at 42, 594 A. 2d 172. Moreover, in capital cases trial courts should be especially sensitive to permitting attorneys to conduct some voir dire. Biegenwald II, supra, 106 N.J. at 30, 524 A. 2d 130; accord Erazo, supra, 126 N.J. at 129, 594 A. 2d 232 ([a]s long as counsel acts reasonably and responsibly, as counsel did here, voir dire should proceed uninhibited by artificial time limits on questioning). Defense counsel was given ample opportunity to question prospective jurors in an unrestricted manner. Defense counsel explored several relevant areas of inquiry including reactions to drug abuse and psychiatric testimony, the latter of which constituted defendant's major defense in both the guilt and penalty phase of his trial. He engaged prospective juror Romilda Bryden in the following dialogue about drug use, the essential component of the defense theory: Q. Can I ask you in general your feelings about illegal drug usage? I'm talking about cocaine basically. Do you think people who have a cocaine problem should be punished or should be helped? A. I think they should be put in a place where they can be helped because punishing, I don't think, really helps them get rid of their problems. If they have to be institutionalized to be helped, I agree with that. Similarly, defense counsel was able to elicit information on prospective juror Doris Fisher's opinion on drug use. Q. Mrs. Fisher, I do have a question for you. It deals with your basic thinking on people who take illicit drugs, whether it be heroin or cocaine which are basically illegal drugs. Do you think people who take those should be assisted and counseled or should be punished? A. If they're only taking them themselves, then they should be assisted and counseled. Q. You'd have difficult with people who deal in drugs, I guess? A. Right. As previously mentioned, counsel also questioned some jurors about the kidnapping aspect of the crime. Prospective juror Paul Edson and defense counsel engaged in the following dialogue: Q.    The first is to determine whether or not John Martini did anything at all illegal, you understand that? A. Right. Q. The State hopes to prove the content of the indictment, do you understand that? A. Right.         Q. All right. You know from the indictment at least    [y]ou heard there was a kidnap situation and a murder, do you understand that? A. From what I understand from Tuesday, yes. Q. Okay. Now, you know that before you get to the penalty stage, Mr. Edson, you have to decide John did this thing, do you understand that? A. Right. Q. You have to determine among your fellow jurors that John did murder this kidnapped victim, do you understand that? A. Yes. Defense counsel asked similar questions of prospective juror Loretta Olsommer. Q. That this is a kidnap-murder case. Do you remember that? A. Right. Q. Had you read anything about the case at all? A. No, not at all, no. Q. Does the fact that it's a kidnap-murder case, and that's pretty much all you know about because I think Judge Gaeta read the indictment to you  A. I know what he said.         Q. All right. Now, let's assume that that exactly has happened, that I think the Judge told you this is a kidnap-murder case, right? A. Right. Q. So let's assume the jury comes back with a guilty verdict that Mr. Martini did it. A. Right. Q. Would you be swayed toward death before you thought any further about it? A. No, not really. The overall quality of the voir dire of Martini's prospective jurors suffered from none of the shortcomings that were present in Biegenwald IV and Williams II. The similarities between the deficiencies in the overall voir dire in those two cases were plentiful, obvious and disturbing. Biegenwald IV, supra, 126 N.J. at 30, 594 A. 2d 172. We are convinced that, as a whole, the voir dire in this case was sufficiently probing to weed out any prospective jurors who indicated through their answers that the facts of this case might impair their ability to determine the proper sentence. No voir dire is perfect, but we are satisfied that defendant had sufficient opportunity to explore the biases of the potential jurors. Dixon, supra, 125 N.J. at 244, 593 A. 2d 266. In view of the sufficiently-probing nature of the voir dire, any potential harm caused by the failure of the trial court and counsel to question prospective jurors on their views of kidnap-murders and murder to escape detection was harmless.