Opinion ID: 2428908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ISSUE 19: Jurors who stated or implied they would favor automatic imposition of the death penalty upon a finding of guilt.

Text: There were three jurors challenged on this ground: Madison Martin, Marvis Short, and Walter Davidson. Two of them, Madison Martin and Marvis Short, initially responded in a manner suggesting they were firmly committed to the death penalty upon conviction, but upon further questioning the prosecutor elicited from them responses that suggested they could consider all sentencing options. Furthermore, they were not challenged for cause. However, the bias demonstrated by the answers of the third juror, Walter Davidson, was strong and unequivocal: DEFENSE COUNSEL: I believe you indicated that you had an opinion as to what the appropriate penalty would be if he's found guilty. Was I right in that? DAVIDSON: Yes, I do. DEFENSE COUNSEL: What is that opinion? DAVIDSON: Death. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Would you be able to consider any other penalty or would death be the penalty that you would feel at this point that you would probably vote for, if you were to find him guilty? DAVIDSON: I definitely would vote for it. DEFENSE COUNSEL: You would definitely vote for death? DAVIDSON: Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, I would challenge this juror. The prosecutor attempted a rehabilitation of this juror by eliciting a positive response to further questions whether Davidson could decide a proper penalty based on evidence that you heard in the penalty phase. This juror had indicated a bias so strong that the prosecutor's questions did not serve to remove the disqualification. As stated in Montgomery v. Commonwealth, Ky., 819 S.W.2d 713, 718 (1991), further questions do not provide a device to `rehabilitate' a juror who should be considered disqualified by his personal knowledge or his past experience, or his attitude as expressed on voir dire. Davidson was struck by peremptory challenge, no doubt one exercised by the defense rather than the prosecutor, although this is implicit rather than explicit because the strike sheets have not been preserved. Madison Martin and Marvis Short were not struck, no doubt because the defense had run out of peremptory challenges and their somewhat equivocal answers made leaving these undesirables on the jury less onerous than others, like Walter Davidson, against whom peremptories were used.