Opinion ID: 1654600
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: WHETHER A JUROR'S STATEMENTS AT A SUBSEQUENT UNRELATED TRIAL CONSTITUTED JUROR MISCONDUCT IN McGILBERRY'S TRIAL.

Text: ¶ 5. McGilberry contends that juror Greg Harper did not consider mitigating evidence during McGilberry's trial because, during voir dire in a subsequent unrelated trial, Harper stated that he did not give a lot of weight to mitigation. McGilberry concludes that Harper must therefore have withheld information when examined at McGilberry's trial concerning Harper's willingness or unwillingness to consider mitigating evidence. When a venireperson in criminal proceedings fails to respond to a question presented by defense counsel on voir dire, and the venireperson actually has the knowledge to respond affirmatively or negatively, upon a motion for a new trial, the circuit court should determine whether the question was relevant to the voir dire examination, whether the question was unambiguous, and whether the juror had substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited. Odom v. State, 355 So.2d 1381, 1383 (Miss.1978). ¶ 6. In the present case, McGilberry makes no showing that Harper was disinclined to consider mitigating evidence at the 1995 trial. He only shows that Harper expressed such a sentiment at a later proceeding. To infer prejudice would be speculative at best, and we do not engage in speculation in such circumstances. Buckley v. State, 772 So.2d 1059, 1065 (Miss.2000). Therefore, Harper did not have substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited, and he did not withhold such information. This issue is without merit.