Opinion ID: 2379771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: 519 4 qualifying jury as to death penalty

Text: All appellants objected to the procedure whereby many jurors who indicated they could not impose the death penalty in any case were stricken for cause. The specific objection was that the inability of particular jurors to return a verdict of death under any circumstance was not clearly evidenced by a voluntary expression of the jurors but resulted from a series of leading questions by the Commonwealth's Attorney. A typical examination by the Commonwealth's Attorney was as follows: Q   . Sir, have you conscientious or other scruples against the imposition of a death sentence? A Yes sir. Q So you could not, I take it then, under any circumstances impose a death sentence? A No. The juror was then stricken for cause. In Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), the Supreme Court overturned a death sentence in a case in which jurors who were opposed to the death penalty were excluded from the jury. Witherspoon does not prohibit dismissal for cause however if the opposition to the death penalty is so strong that the juror could not under any circumstances impose the penalty. In this case many jurors were excluded when, as a result of leading questions by the Commonwealth's Attorney, they indicated they could not impose the death penalty. The appellants were denied the opportunity to question these jurors further. While we do not reverse the case upon this ground, we think it better practice for the Commonwealth to phrase its questions to elicit information from the prospective jurors and not lead them to affirm a conclusion expressed by the attorney for the Commonwealth.