Opinion ID: 793211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Striking of Three Potential Jurors for Cause

Text: 12 Rousan claims the trial court violated his constitutional rights in striking three potential jurors for cause. Potential jurors may not be struck for cause simply because they state general conscientious or religious scruples with regard to the death penalty. Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 657, 107 S.Ct. 2045, 95 L.Ed.2d 622 (1987). However, a potential juror may be struck for cause if his views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985) (quotation omitted). In striking such a juror, it is not necessary to prove with unmistakable clarity that a potential juror's ability is impaired. Id. 13 Rousan points to statements made during voir dire by each of the three potential jurors, venirepersons Cowan, Henkins and Davis, to the effect that they could put aside their personal reservations and apply the law as instructed with regard to the death penalty: 14 DEFENSE COUNSEL: [Y]ou personally will be satisfied if they prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to you, is that right? 15 COWAN: Yes. 16 DEFENSE COUNSEL: You won't make them do more than what the law says, you will apply the burden of proof which says that the State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that's the standard you use? 17 COWAN: Yes. 18