Opinion ID: 1781677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Linda Paul

Text: Prospective juror, Linda Paul, was questioned in the first panel. Before the attorneys questioned the panel, the judge propounded questions, en masse, as to general concepts, including presumption of innocence. On cross, Ms. Paul indicated that she would want to hear both sides of the story before she made up her mind. Another prospective juror then queried, I believe he instructed us a while ago that the burden of proof was on the prosecution. Is that correct? Counsel responded, That's most likely correct. At which point the trial judge interjected, That is correct. Don't be misled. That is the law. The State has the burden of proof. Following this instruction by the court, Ms. Paul later elaborated, Well, if I listen to the State and I heard all of their facts, and thenand the Defense didn't say anything, I would have to wonder. It would probablyit would be a tough decision. The defense challenged Ms. Paul for cause on a variety of bases before seizing on defendant's right not to testify. The judge then chided counsel for presenting confusing hypothets to people who do not have legal training in the law ... [and who] have not been fully instructed, but went on to grant the challenge for cause. However, the state countered that counsel had confused the panel by achieving a chain reaction of prospective jurors answering that they would like to hear both sides. The state then reminded the judge that he had instructed the panel that the state bears the burden of proof and defendant does not have to do anything. Based on this exchange, the judge withdrew the original grant of defense's cause challenge as to Ms. Paul and counsel exercised a peremptory challenge to excuse her. The challenge for cause was properly denied, and in this instance, defendant's assertion that the court failed to instruct the jurors is not supported by the record.