Opinion ID: 2981786
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Restrictions on Voir Dire

Text: Hodges alleges that he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury when the trial court refused to allow his attorneys to ask prospective jurors whether they could consider a life sentence for a defendant with a prior conviction for murder. Specifically, defense counsel repeatedly attempted to ask the following question or a variation thereof: “Could you impose a life sentence for somebody who has been convicted of first degree murder twice?” The trial court repeatedly sustained the prosecution’s objections to the question. No. 09-5021 Hodges v. Colson Page 8 Hodges raised this claim on direct appeal. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals rejected it, finding that each juror was asked and allowed to answer questions about whether he could follow the law, consider a life sentence, and weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Hodges, 1995 WL 301443, at . The court also found that a prospective juror could not answer the question “without knowing more about the facts surrounding the case,” and that the question impermissibly sought “to obtain a pledge from the prospective juror.” Id. The district court found that the state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of federal law, agreeing with the state appellate court that Hodges’s questions improperly sought to commit the jurors to an opinion before hearing all of the evidence. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant a trial by an impartial jury. Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 726–27 (1992). An adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors is integral to that right. Id. at 729; Dennis v. Mitchell, 354 F.3d 511, 523–24 (6th Cir. 2003). A state court’s refusal to pose “constitutionally compelled” questions merits habeas relief. Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 425–26 (1991). Questions are constitutionally compelled only if “the trial court’s failure to ask these questions . . . render[s] the defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair.” Id. Hodges relies primarily on Morgan in support of his position. In Morgan, the trial court did not permit defense counsel to ask prospective jurors the following question: “If you found [the defendant] guilty, would you automatically vote to impose the death penalty no matter what the facts are?” Morgan, 504 U.S. at 723. The Supreme Court held that general questions about following the law were not enough and that it was error to exclude a more specific question tailored to identify jurors “who would always impose death following conviction [of a capital offense].” Id. at 733, 735 (emphasis in original). The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals’ determination that the trial court’s restrictions on voir dire were permissible was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law. The trial court allowed defense counsel to ask the Morgan question, i.e., whether there was an aggravating circumstance that would cause her No. 09-5021 Hodges v. Colson Page 9 automatically to impose the death penalty. In fact, the trial court went beyond that and also allowed defense counsel to ask prospective jurors whether they could impose a life sentence on a defendant who had a prior conviction for a violent felony.1 Only when defense counsel sought to get even more specific—asking whether a prospective juror could impose a life sentence on a defendant who had a prior first-degree murder conviction—did the trial court restrict questioning. This circuit has held that voir dire questions about how a potential juror would vote if given specific examples of aggravating or mitigating evidence are not constitutionally compelled under Morgan. In Dennis, 354 F.3d at 523, the petitioner alleged that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by refusing to permit him to ask prospective jurors about specific mitigating factors, including age, lack of prior criminal history, and environment. We held that the Ohio Supreme Court’s conclusion that the trial court allowed adequate questioning was “not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record” and was not “contrary to United States Supreme Court precedent.” Id. at 525. We noted that the trial court had allowed the petitioner’s counsel to ask prospective jurors about mitigating factors in general: whether or not they could consider mitigating factors and return a life sentence; whether they could follow the law; and whether any of the jury panel had strong feelings about psychological evidence concerning upbringing, discipline, and lack of discipline. Id. at 524–26. Similarly, in Bedford v. Collins, 567 F.3d 225 (6th Cir. 2009), we rejected the petitioner’s claim that the trial court improperly limited the scope of voir dire by prohibiting counsel from asking questions that sought to elicit prospective jurors’ views on the petitioner’s specific case. We noted that the trial court “drew the line at questions 1 In one instance, defense counsel asked if a prospective juror could consider mitigating evidence for a defendant who had been previously convicted of a violent felony (as opposed to a previous conviction for first-degree murder). The juror answered “[p]robably not” and was subsequently excluded for cause. Hodges claims the exclusion of this juror “proves the fundamental unfairness of the trial court’s restrictions [on voir dire].” Pet.’s Br. at 69. We disagree for at least two reasons. First, the question posed to that juror contemplated a conviction for any violent felony, which is different from a question asking about a specific violent felony actually at issue in the trial (e.g., first-degree murder). Second, the trial court’s exclusion of that juror on the basis of her answer to that specific question does nothing whatsoever to suggest that the trial court was constitutionally compelled to allow the excluded questions, which focused on first-degree murder, not violent felonies in general. Accordingly, despite Hodges’s vehement arguments to the contrary, the exclusion of that juror does not provide compelling support for his position. No. 09-5021 Hodges v. Colson Page 10 that sought to elicit the jurors’ views on [the petitioner’s] specific case—but many judges understandably (and properly) would do the same thing to prevent the lawyers from previewing their case through voir dire.” Id. at 232 (emphasis added). Ultimately we concluded that the restrictions on voir dire “did not render the process fundamentally unfair. [The restrictions] reflect instead a reasonable effort to enable adequate exploration of juror biases (on the one hand) while preventing counsel from extracting commitments from individual jurors as to the way they would vote (on the other).” Id. (citing Dennis, 354 F.3d at 523–25). Other circuits agree that Morgan does not compel a trial court to allow questions about how a potential juror would vote if given specific examples of aggravating or mitigating evidence. See Richmond v. Polk, 375 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1207 (10th Cir. 1998) (“When a defendant seeks to ask a juror to speculate or precommit on how that juror might vote based on any particular facts, the question strays beyond the purpose and protection of Morgan.”). In Richmond, the Fourth Circuit addressed a claim functionally identical to the one presented here by Hodges. There, the defendant sought to ask potential jurors “if . . . knowing that [the defendant] had a previous first-degree murder conviction, they could still consider mitigating circumstances . . . in determining what their ultimate recommendation as to life or death is going to be.” Richmond, 375 F.3d at 316. The trial court denied counsel’s request to ask the question “on the basis that it was a ‘stakeout’ question aimed at determining what prospective jurors would do if presented with a certain state of evidence.” Id. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed and affirmed. Id. at 329–30. The Fourth Circuit held that the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision “was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Morgan.” Id. at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted). It reasoned: Morgan does not require that a capital defendant be allowed to determine at voir dire what a prospective juror’s sentencing decision will be if presented with a specific state of evidence or circumstances. Rather, Morgan requires that a capital defendant be afforded an adequate opportunity at voir dire to identify prospective jurors who, even prior to the State’s case in chief, have predetermined to impose the death penalty. No. 09-5021 Hodges v. Colson Page 11 Id. (internal quotation marks and formatting omitted). We agree with the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning in Richmond, and we hereby reaffirm our own holdings in Dennis and Bedford. Trial courts have “a great deal” of discretion in conducting voir dire. Morgan, 504 U.S. at 729. Morgan simply does not require a trial court to permit defense counsel to ask prospective jurors how they would vote assuming the existence of particular mitigating or aggravating circumstances, which is essentially what defense counsel sought to do here. Morgan allows for the identification and exclusion of jurors who are biased for or against the death penalty before being presented with any evidence and would always vote in accordance with their biases without regard to the particular facts of the particular case. Id. at 733 (“Were voir dire not available to lay bare the foundation of petitioner’s challenge for cause against those prospective jurors who would always impose death following conviction, his right not to be tried by such jurors would be rendered . . . nugatory.”) (emphasis in original)). When defense counsel asks questions about the specific aggravating and/or mitigating factors actually at issue in a case, defense counsel is no longer attempting to identify members of the venire who would always vote for the death penalty; rather, defense counsel is attempting to preview how prospective jurors will vote given the specific facts of the individual case, and Morgan does not require a trial court to allow such previews. Here, defense counsel was permitted to ask the Morgan question and was even permitted to go beyond that and ask questions such as whether a juror could impose a life sentence on a defendant with previous violent-felony convictions. That was easily sufficient to comply with Morgan’s requirement that a capital defendant be allowed to identify prospective jurors who would “always” vote for death. See id. The trial court excluded only questions concerning specific aggravating factors actually at issue in the case (namely, a previous conviction for first-degree murder). Accordingly, the decision of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the trial court’s restrictions on voir dire was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law, and Hodges is not entitled to habeas relief on this claim. No. 09-5021 Hodges v. Colson Page 12