Opinion ID: 1325644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Refusal to Strike Prospective Jurors for Cause.

Text: Mueller next argues that nine prospective jurors who had knowledge of his prior record or confession should have been stricken for cause. Our standard of review here is well-settled. Based on the trial court's ability to observe and evaluate the apparent sincerity, conscientiousness, intelligence, and demeanor of prospective jurors first hand, we will not disturb its rulings on challenges for cause, unless there is manifest error. Pope v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 114, 123-24, 360 S.E.2d 352, 358 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1489, 99 L.Ed.2d 716 (1988). In making this determination, we decide whether the voir dire as a whole shows that a juror's performance of his or her duty, in accordance with the trial court's instructions and the oath taken, would be prevented or substantially impaired. Adams, 448 U.S. at 45,100 S.Ct. at 2526; Eaton, 240 Va. at 246, 397 S.E.2d at 391; George, 242 Va. at 276, 411 S.E.2d at 19. Additionally, we observe that jurors need not be totally unaware of the facts and issues involved in the case. Irvin, 366 U.S. at 722, 81 S.Ct. at 1642. This is true even in instances where a juror has previous knowledge of a defendant's past crimes and of the current charge against the defendant. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 800, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2036, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). In the case before us, the trial court initially questioned the prospective jurors collectively concerning whether (1) there was anything which would prejudice them against either party, (2) they were aware of any bias or prejudice against either party, and (3) they understood that a defendant is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [6] Additionally, each prospective juror was questioned individually by the trial court and counsel for both parties to determine whether pre-trial publicity had caused him or her to be biased.