Opinion ID: 2812008
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: C. Ingram - Venire Member Number 148

Text: ¶61. Peremptory challenge S-10 was exercised in excusing Ingram based on her prior employment at the Marshall County Correctional Facility. The State noted that Ingram worked at the correctional facility and that the State previously had agreed with Cox’s counsel to excuse another venire member because of employment at the Union County Correctional Facility. The State expressed its desire to excuse any venire member who had daily contact with prisoners for fear of attachment and an unwillingness to consider the death penalty. Cox argued that the trial was in Union County, not Marshall County, and that Ingram was currently unemployed; thus the State’s excuse must be pretextual. The State replied that, 27 regardless of her current employment status, the fact she had other family members working at correctional facilities also was of concern. ¶62. Cox argues disparate treatment of venire member Number 203, on whom the State did not exercise a peremptory challenge. Number 203 was offered as an alternate juror, and the defense ultimately struck him. Number 203 previously had worked at the Marshall County Correctional Facility in Holly Springs. The State rebutted that a significant differentiating factor existed between Ingram and Number 203– their opinions on the death penalty. Ingram had “no opinion.” Number 203 “strongly favor[ed]” the death penalty.