Opinion ID: 756730
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Venirepersons

Text: 33 Walls also claims that the district court erred in failing to grant relief on his claims regarding three venirepersons who were excluded from the panel after voir dire. The state argues that these claims are defaulted and that we therefore cannot consider them. We need not address whether Walls is procedurally barred from pursuing these claims because we find them to plainly be without constitutional merit. See Thompson v. Jones, 870 F.2d 432, 434 (8th Cir.1988). 34 Venirepersons may be excluded from a jury based on their views about capital punishment when those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties as a juror. Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980). During voir dire, three venirepersons expressed deep misgivings about their ability to impose the death penalty. Venireperson Houser, when asked by the prosecutor, [C]ould you consider the death penalty? answered, At this juncture, no. Likewise, venireperson Ferrick stated, I believe that no man has the right to take another man's life. The prosecutor followed up by asking Are you saying [that] you could not vote for the death penalty? Ferrick answered, Yes, sir. Finally, venireperson Meyer stated, I sincerely doubt ... that I would be able to impose the death penalty if it was needed. I don't think I could do it. Defense counsel was offered an opportunity to question each potential juror to show that they could follow the law, but these three did not alter their positions. The trial court then excused them for cause. 35 A trial court may excuse potential jurors for cause if it finds that their views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of [their] duties as [jurors] in accordance with [their] instructions and [their] oath. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). In reviewing this determination, we are mindful that deference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror. Id. at 426, 105 S.Ct. 844. When a state trial or appellate court has made a factual finding of a claim a petitioner raises on habeas corpus, we defer to that finding if it is fairly supported by the record. See Murray v. Delo, 34 F.3d 1367, 1377 (8th Cir.1994). Here, the record amply supports the trial court's decision to remove these venirepersons, and the district court did not err in denying Walls federal habeas relief on this claim. 36 We have carefully considered each of Walls's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. The district court therefore did not err in denying relief on those claims.