Opinion ID: 1058852
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Juror Ashby

Text: Juniper contends that prospective juror Ashby should have been struck for cause because her answers indicated that she [could not] sit fairly and impartially as she [had] already formed opinions regarding Juniper and the evidence before the commencement of the trial. Specifically, Juniper cites Ashby's statement that it's hard when kids are involved and her knowledge of the case through media coverage to support this assertion. The Commonwealth responds that Ashby's statements plainly show she had not formed an opinion and would fairly contemplate the evidence and instructions presented at trial. The Commonwealth also relies on the trial court's observation that although [Ashby's] answers at least regarding capital punishment were somewhat inconsistent, her responses did not provide a reason to strike. The following colloquy occurred after Ashby indicated she had heard something about the case from media reports: [COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]: Has what you heard about it or the seriousness of the allegations made you to [sic] form an opinion about the guilt or innocence of the person who's accused? [MS. ASHBY]: No. It haven't [sic] made me form an opinion or nothing, but it's hard when kids is involved. I'll put it that way. So I can't say. I can't form an opinion until all evidence is heard or what. [COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]: So you would base your decision on the evidence that you will hear in the courtroom which may include the deaths of children andbut make your decision on what you hear in the courtroom? You're nodding your head yes? [MS. ASHBY]: Yes. . . . . . [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Ms. Ashby, based upon what you have heard or read, have you formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Juniper? MS. ASHBY: No. No. The totality of Ashby's voir dire reflects that she would not rely on any information she had read or heard about the case and that she had not formed an opinion regarding Juniper's guilt or innocence. As such, she would be able to stand indifferent in the cause and fairly and impartially perform the duties of a juror. Mere exposure to media coverage does not disqualify a potential juror as long as that individual can still fairly and impartially weigh the evidence presented at trial. See Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 430, 111 S.Ct. 1899, 114 L.Ed.2d 493 (1991); see also Wolfe, 265 Va. at 209-12, 576 S.E.2d at 480-82; Bell v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 172, 192-94, 563 S.E.2d 695, 709-10 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1123, 123 S.Ct. 860, 154 L.Ed.2d 805 (2003). Consequently, we find that the trial court did not err in refusing to strike this potential juror.