Opinion ID: 2323099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Indictment and Pretrial Hearings

Text: Swan was arrested on February 25, 2000 and subsequently charged by indictment with three counts of murder first degree (one count of intentional murder and two counts of felony murder), robbery first degree, burglary first degree, conspiracy second degree, and five counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. On a morning scheduled for preliminary hearings, Swan and Norcross were in separate holding cells in the Kent County Courthouse when correctional officers intercepted a note that Swan had dictated to another inmate. In the note, Swan warned Norcross not to trust or talk to his attorney and gave his grandmother's telephone number as a means of communicating with him. Swan further warned Norcross: Don't say anything or if you did, say you lied. Swan also told another inmate that he had nothing to worry about as long as Norcross refused to further cooperate with the State. This case proceeded to trial in June of 2001. The trial judge conducted individual voir dire of prospective jurors for Swan's trial. Because Swan was potentially eligible for the death penalty, the trial judge asked each prospective juror, among other things, whether he or she could impose the death penalty. The trial judge typically asked each prospective juror the following two questions: (1) Have you formed or expressed an opinion about whether or not the defendant should be given the death penalty?, and (2) Are there any circumstances under which you could consider imposing the death penalty? [2] The trial judge excused eight prospective jurors on the basis of their answers to those questions. Six of those eight prospective jurors answered the trial judge's second question in the negative, unequivocally stating that they could not impose the death penalty under any circumstances. [3] Two prospective jurors testified with less certainty. Prospective juror 7 stated that he had some qualms about the death penalty. Prospective juror 7 also stated that he was not sure if he could recommend a sentence of death even if the evidence weighed in favor of it. Prospective juror 8 stated: Up until this point, I was fairly ambivalent about the death penalty because I was not personally involved. Now I'm not really sure how I feel about it. Prospective juror 8 also stated that she was not sure if she could recommend a sentence of death even if evidence weighed in favor of it. Based on that testimony, the trial judge excused prospective jurors 7 and 8. Defense counsel did not attempt to rehabilitate those jurors or object to their dismissal.