Opinion ID: 3012641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Voir Dire Examination

Text: The trial judge conducted the questioning of the jury pool at voir dire. Following his initial examination, he called counsel to sidebar to determine whether they had any 3. Appellee did not provide a counterstatement of facts and indicated only that he agreed with Appellant’s first paragraph, except for Appellant’s statement that he placed his hands in the air after he stopped the car. The recitation of the facts are therefore taken from Appellant’s statement of the facts. See Appellant’s Br. at 4-5. 4 supplemental questions to be asked of the jury panel. Appellant’s counsel requested that the district court propound the following four questions on the subject of law enforcement bias:
more inclined to believe the testimony of a law enforcement officer over the testimony of a citizen.” N.T. (3/4/02) at 40. 2. “Does anyone have any feelings either adverse or pro toward police in general.” N.T. (3/4/02) at 41. 3. “Whether or not anyone was more inclined to feel force used by the Police Department was lawful simply because it was done during the course of an arrest?” N.T. (3/4/02) at 42. 4. “Whether or not any of the jurors have adverse feelings about individuals that lead police on pursuit.” N.T. (3/4/02) at 45. The trial judge denied the first request, stating, “Just put that in your requests to charge and I’ll put that in the charge to the jury . . . I give it as a standard charge in all cases, anyway.” N.T. (3/4/02) at 40. Regarding the second question, the following exchange took place between the court and counsel: MR. DENENBERG [appellant’s counsel]: Okay. I just thought it would be better to preempt that now, if anyone here had any feelings one way or another for or against police officers based on any experience that they had. THE COURT: Well, I tried to elicit that, but no one on the panel has ever been arrested, no one on the panel has ever served for a Police Department, nor does anyone on the panel have anyone in their immediate family who’s been with the Police Department, except for one individual, and none of them have been arrested, nor has any member of their immediate family been arrested. MR. DENENBERG: Okay. I think my question is a little different with respect to — you know. 5 THE COURT: Well, I will deal with that in the charge. If you want me to, I’ll charge — I give that charge, that they are to consider the testimony of all witnesses without regard to their occupations or whether they are members of the clergy or members of the Police Department. MR. DENENBERG: My question is a little different, as well as the second question, does anyone have any feelings either adverse or pro toward police in general. It would work both ways, toward both the defendant and the plaintiff. MR. DIEGO [defense counsel]: I don’t have any problem with the question being asked, I think the information we’re eliciting lends itself to that. THE COURT: Well, I don’t want to — my reluctance in asking that, I have no problem with giving a charge to that effect, my reluctance in asking it at this point is that no one on the panel so far has given me any indications that they’ve ever been arrested or that they believe or disbelieve a police officer or anybody else and I don’t want to highlight that. But, I will give you a charge in the charge that they are to consider the testimony equally. I think that in asking that question at this point, in light of what the voir dire has revealed, is more prejudicial than helpful. N.T. (3/4/02) at 40-42. The trial court rejected Appellant’s request to propound the fourth question on a similar basis. N.T. (3/4/02) at 45 (“I think by asking that question I make it worse.”). The court concluded the third question was inappropriate since it concerned a question of law that should be addressed in the jury charge. The court did not give the jury an instruction on the subject of law enforcement bias.