Opinion ID: 2088662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Court's Voir Dire Comments

Text: The defendant next argues he was harmed by the trial court's mention of John Hinckley during voir dire. The trial court made the following comments during voir dire of prospective jurors: Now, does anybody here understand ... does anybody here based on whatever news media coverage they may have been exposed to in this day of all encompassing news exposure, does anybody here believe that because of what they heard they can't decide a case based on law and evidence in the courtroom that they've already made up their mind based on that evidence ... or that news media? No hands raised. Everybody probably at some time remembers seeing a fellow named Hinckley who supposedly shot Ronald Reagan and everybody saw the news coverage and it was there on television for days and days ... MR. MARSHALL [defense counsel]: Now, if the Court please ... COURT: Mr. Marshall, if you want to make a record you can do it after I'm through. Please sit down. Now, at that time it was on the news media. Now, television news cameras can do marvelous things. Nobody here in this room actually saw John Hinckley shoot Ronald Reagan. The difference being what you saw was a television coverage. Now, does everybody understand the difference between having the witnesses in person under oath tell you what happened as opposed to fifteen seconds on a television news report? Now, I'm not saying that he didn't do it. All I'm saying is that we don't know until the witnesses tell us. Does everybody see the difference? That's an important distinction. And it goes back to what I told you that we are going to decide things based on cold, hard law and facts. Does anybody have a problem with that? Record, 169-70. The defendant contends that a nationwide furor erupted after Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity and that [w]hile impossible to prove, the mention of that case would certainly tend to taint the entire jury panel with regard to the defense of insanity itself. A trial judge has broad discretionary power to regulate the form and substance of voir dire and has a concurrent duty to remain impartial and to refrain from making unnecessary comments or remarks. Whitehead v. State (1987), Ind., 511 N.E.2d 284, 291. Here, the trial judge's comments regarding Hinckley contained no mention of insanity nor of the verdict in the Hinckley case. The trial judge used the case to illustrate the difference between media reports jurors may have seen and the evidence they would hear at trial. The defendant's claim that the jury panel was tainted with regard to his insanity defense is speculative at best, and certainly insufficient to demonstrate an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Id. at 292.