Opinion ID: 159762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: other voir dire issues

Text: Petitioner argues the trial court’s refusal (1) to allow her to voir dire potential jurors concerning their views of mitigating evidence and (2) to permit individual voir dire concerning views on capital punishment denied her a fair trial. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, on direct criminal appeal, noted that there was no evidence petitioner’s voir dire was restricted in any way. See Plantz, 876 P.2d at 279. The court concluded, based on state law, that the trial court properly limited Bryson’s counsel’s open-ended inquiries about possible mitigating evidence. See id. Also, the court rejected any argument that the trial court mismanaged voir dire. See id. at 282. After summarizing three days’ worth of voir dire, the federal district court concluded that the limitations imposed on Bryson’s counsel did not deprive petitioner of a qualified, unbiased jury. With respect to individual voir dire, the district court found no error, -27- because many of the remarks petitioner complained of were invited by petitioner’s counsel, the prospective jurors making the remarks only expressed their own views and did not serve on the jury, and the remarks were not so prejudicial as to violate due process. A defendant’s right to an impartial jury includes the right to an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors. See Morgan, 504 U.S. at 729. The trial court retains great latitude in conducting voir dire. See Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 424, 427 (1991). Here, the voir dire was adequate to determine whether a prospective juror was qualified to serve. See Moore, 195 F.3d at 1170. The trial court’s exercise of its discretion to disallow inquiry regarding mitigating evidence or individual voir dire did not render petitioner’s trial fundamentally unfair. Cf. Morgan, 504 U.S. at 730 & n.5. Accordingly, we conclude the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ determinations were not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.