Opinion ID: 1589788
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Seeking promises from the jury during voir dire

Text: ¶ 110. Goff alleges that during voir dire, the State sought a promise from the jury that they would be able to convict Goff even in the absence of DNA evidence. The particular inquiry of which Goff complains is as follows: BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY (voir dire): ... [Y]ou know, if you watch TV a lot, you probably get to watch  I don't know how many of you  how many of you watch CSI? Well, raise your hand. See, there's a lot of you. A lot of you. It's a very popular show. My kids love it. All right. They're older and they love that show. They like Law and Order. But, can everybody tell me that they can separate what they see on TV from what you see in the courtroom? I know that sounds like a silly question, but some people go, oh, well, it was on CSI, so how come they don't do it in every case? All right. And I can tell you how I know, I know CSI and Law and Order are make-believe. If you flip the channel, you may see Scotty beaming somebody else up, and that's on TV. All right? So, can everybody tell me  and, again, this kind of goes to the burden of proof, you know, about what evidence you have  and can everyone tell me that they will listen to the evidence and not speculate because they don't have, say, DNA or they don't have fingerprints and things you may see or hear about on CSI? Can everyone tell me they can do that? Yeah? ¶ 110. During closing arguments, the State reminded the jury of the question posed during voir dire, stating in part that [y]ou were asked in voir dire, you all know about CSI. Can you set that aside if it's not needed and return a verdict, and you all said yes. So we ask you to hold to that. It's not necessary here, and it's not needed. The evidence was overwhelming. According to Goff, this tactic of putting jurors in a box has long been condemned. In support of this argument, Goff relies on this Court's statement: It is an improper influence to put the jury in a box by voir dire tactics which extract a promise, prior to trial, to ignore evidence favorable to the defendant. This promise or pledge prevents the jurors from considering all factors relative to the verdict. The jurors are then called upon during closing argument to fulfill that promise, and the effect  whether calculated or not  is to shame or coerce the jury into rejecting factors which would tend to mitigate against the death penalty. Stringer v. State, 500 So.2d 928, 938-39 (Miss.1986). [26] ¶ 112. It is reversible error to ask a juror during voir dire to commit to returning a particular verdict. Id. at 938; see also West v. State, 485 So.2d 681 (Miss. 1985); Murphy v. State, 246 So.2d 920 (Miss.1971). Here, however, the prosecutor did not ask the jurors for a promise to convict, nor did he ask the jurors to ignore any piece of evidence; rather, he asked the jurors to listen to the evidence and return a verdict based upon the evidence presented at trial. [27] See Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246, 1264 (Miss.1996) (questions did not appear to extract any kind of commitment from the potential jurors, but merely probed into their prejudices in order to get some insight into their thoughts); West v. State, 553 So.2d 8, 22 (Miss.1989) (Our law allows an attorney for either side to probe the prejudices of the prospective jurors to the end that all will understand the jurors' thoughts on matters directly related to the issues to be tried. What is impermissible is for an attorney to attempt to secure from the juror a pledge that, if a certain set of facts occur or are presented, the juror will vote a certain way). Therefore, the admission of this statement was not error.