Opinion ID: 1730571
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Voir Dire of the Two Prospective Jurors

Text: Lisa Devezin sat on the second panel of prospective jurors to be subjected to voir dire. When asked about whether she could consider voting for the imposition of the death penalty, Devezin stated I can consider it; however, she noted that facts sufficient to show first degree murder would not be enough and that she would want to hear about the background of the defendant before voting to impose death. Devezin also stated that she thought the death penalty was severe, but had the same response when asked about the severity of life imprisonment. These responses regarding the death penalty mirrored those of several other members of her panel. Later in the course of voir dire, Devezin admitted that Dr. Armond Devezin, who works with juvenile offenders in Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, was her husband's uncle. Devezin denied ever discussing Dr. Devezin's work with him. When asked about the prospect of rehabilitating convicted criminals, Devezin stated that rehabilitation was possible if they want to change. Alfred Price sat on the sixth and final panel of jurors to be subjected to voir dire. Price testified that he was currently employed as a facility maintenance manager for the Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO). He also stated that he had not had occasion to work in the Magnolia Project [16] in the last 20 years. In the trial court, the prosecutor offered the following reasons for striking Devezin: As to Lisa Devezin, No. 110, we have that both her uncle, her husband's uncle, treats juveniles I think over at Juvenile Detention, and also that she thought or made a comment that she thought death was too severe. [17] The prosecutor also offered fairly detailed reasons to support his exercise of a peremptory strike on Price: And Alfred Price, No. 273, oh, yes, he is a HANO employee, and there is some there is some evidence about [the Magnolia Project]. While he said he had not been out that way, he was employed with HANO for about 23 years. And he also he voted in a case in this Court, in J Court, the jury voted on a police case of a lesser charge. We now review the court of appeal's conclusion that these responses, in the light of this record, are insufficient to resist a Batson challenge.