Opinion ID: 1311026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Katherine Biggs-Silvers

Text: Breard contends that the trial court erred in refusing to exclude Katherine Biggs-Silvers from the jury panel for cause. At trial, Breard sought to have Biggs-Silvers excluded because, according to Breard, she expressed an aversion to horror movies and anything of a gruesome nature, such as photographs of the victim and of the crime scene. Biggs-Silvers stated that, if the photographs were really gruesome, she would be inclined to impose a more severe punishment. Upon further questioning, however, Biggs-Silvers said that she would decide the issue of punishment in the context of all the other evidence, including whatever mitigating evidence may come from the defense. The trial judge observed that Biggs-Silvers was very candid, and he was satisfied that she was going to keep an open mind on these issues until she hears the evidence. Again, according the trial judge the deference to which he is entitled, we cannot say that he erred in refusing to strike Biggs-Silvers for cause.
Frederick Sorrell and Kenneth Millard Breard contends that Frederick Sorrell and Kenneth Millard should have been excluded from the jury for cause because both men indicated that, in the absence of expert testimony, they would have difficulty finding an accused insane. Both men, however, stated that they would consider the insanity defense and that, if Breard convinced them that he met the legal definition of insanity as contained in the court's instructions, they could find him not guilty. Based upon the total answers of both [men], the trial court determined that neither should be struck for cause. The court was able to observe their demeanor, and, from the record before us, we cannot say that the court erred in its ruling.