Opinion ID: 2270912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Voir Dire of Juror Powell

Text: One of the jurors, Adam Powell, wrote in a pretrial questionnaire that the death penalty was used an appropriate amount and that he thought most of the time the punishment fits the crime. Mr. Powell also checked boxes stating that he somewhat favor[ed] the death penalty and believed in the eye for an eye concept. Mr. Powell checked another box saying that he believed one's childhood experience somewhat affects later behavior and wrote that he believed in some cases the testimony of mental health professionals is very necessary. Mr. Powell also wrote that mental health professionals should be extended every right to assit [ sic ] in trial. During voir dire, Mr. Powell said that he could vote for either death or life, had no preference for either sentence, would keep both options open, and, that, if he believed mitigating circumstances outweighed aggravating circumstances, he would vote for life. Mr. Davis' counsel asked Mr. Powell whether he was willing to say that you could look at somebody's childhood experience and give that meaningful consideration as a reason to vote against the death penalty. Mr. Powell replied, I'm willing to look at it, but I believe as an adult you're a person and no matter what happened in your childhood you know the difference between right and wrong and killing a person and not killing a person. The exchange continued: Mr. Davis' counsel: But from your world view it's not something that should be given meaningful consideration in deciding which punishment to give the deliberate murderer? Mr. Powell: Again, I think that's so abstract. In some cases, yes, it could be, but I believe that most generally, no, as an adult human being you know that it's right to kill a person or not right or what your feelings are. Mr. Davis' counsel: And, again, sort of to follow up on your questionnaire  and this might sort of tie in what you've just told me  it's at least your philosophical belief that you do believe in the concept of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life? Mr. Powell: I believe in that in the context of the justice system, that if that is what is laid forth by the justice system and that's ordained how it works in a society, an orderly society, if that's what's rendered, I believe in that, yes. Later, the State's counsel questioned Mr. Powell: Prosecutor: Mr. Powell, as I understand it, sir, while you generally are not going to give a great deal of weight to evidence of someone's childhood, for example, it is something that if the circumstances were appropriate, you would consider. Mr. Powell: Being that we're talking so vague, yes. I mean, I could see where there could be something that I would consider but generally no. Prosecutor: But it's a matter of weight, how much credit you would give it, if you will. Mr. Powell: Correct. Prosecutor: As opposed to being unwilling to consider it at all. Mr. Powell: Correct. Afterward, Mr. Davis moved to strike Mr. Powell for cause on the ground that Mr. Powell essentially had stated that he could not give meaningful consideration to childhood experiences as a reason to vote against the death penalty. The court denied the strike. Mr. Powell served on Mr. Davis' jury as the foreman.