Opinion ID: 1059146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Juror Reinsberg

Text: The defendant moved the circuit court to excuse this prospective juror because, among other reasons, she indicated at one point during her voir dire that she would probably require the defense to put on evidence during the trial. However, her overall responses to voir dire questions relevant to this particular issue reveal that she could stand indifferent to the cause and would not require the defendant to present evidence to establish his innocence: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you have any feelings about the case from what you have read in the Gazette or from what you may have read in the Daily Press earlier? MS. REINSBERG: The seriousness of it. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Other than the seriousness? MS. REINSBERG: The charges. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Would you require the defense to put on evidence to change your mind or influence your decision considering what you have read? MS. REINSBERG: Probably. THE COURT: Let me ask, what do you mean by that? MS. REINSBERG: From what we have read, I don't know, I was thinking the newspaper  THE COURT: Is accurate? MS. REINSBERG: Is accurate, so I would  I would want to know, it was accurate or inaccurate. Sometimes certain parts can be made up. That shouldn't be. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: May I go on? Considering that response, have you formed an opinion of some sort as to the guilt or innocence of the Defendant if you are going to require us to put on evidence? MS. REINSBERG: No. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That's based on what you have seen or read? MS. REINSBERG: (Nods head.) Just the one article. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Have you formed an opinion on what you have heard, the facts of what you have read, have you formed an opinion as to what punishment Mr. Jackson should receive as a result of what you  MS. REINSBERG: No. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You said that you would probably require us to put on some evidence. Tell us what you would be looking for from the defense. MS. REINSBERG: Well, were there other people involved, for one.    [COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]: Judge, just a couple [of] follow-up questions if I may. Ms. Reinsberg, one of the questions [defense counsel] asked you involved a response in which you said you would want to hear if other people were involved. Understanding that you read the newspaper, correct? MS. REINSBERG: Right. [COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]: That was Saturday's Gazette? MS. REINSBERG: Right. [COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]: Are you willing to put aside any opinions or thoughts you have regarding that newspaper article and judge this case based on the facts presented during the course of the trial? MS. REINSBERG: Definitely. [COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]: And are you going to hold the Commonwealth; that is, myself and Mr. McGinty, in our case to the proper burden of we have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt? MS. REINSBERG: Uh-huh. [COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]: And you understand that at sentencing, if the jury has convicted the Defendant of capital murder, that the burden is on us to prove certain things beyond a reasonable doubt MS. REINSBERG: Right. [COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]:  before you can impose the death penalty? MS. REINSBERG: Right, I understand. [COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]: Are you open-minded to both the death penalty and life in prison? MS. REINSBERG: Definitely. [COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]: Do you agree with the concept that the Defendant does not have to present any evidence at trial? MS. REINSBERG: Right. [COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]: In fact, the Defendant doesn't have to present any evidence at sentencing? MS. REINSBERG: Right. [COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]: Are you willing to follow that principle of law? MS. REINSBERG: Yes. The voir dire of prospective juror Reinsburg demonstrates that the circuit court correctly concluded that this juror understood both the Commonwealth's burden of proof and the fact that the defendant did not have to present any evidence. As we have previously stated, [t]he real test is whether jurors can disabuse their minds of their natural curiosity and decide the case on the evidence submitted and the law as propounded in the court's instructions. Townes v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 307, 329, 362 S.E.2d 650, 662 (1987); accord Eaton v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 236, 247, 397 S.E.2d 385, 392 (1990). Prospective juror Reinsberg satisfied this test. Thus, we find no manifest error in the circuit court's decision refusing to strike this juror for cause.