Opinion ID: 2159956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Voir Dire

Text: Before the voir dire of the jury began, the trial judge said to both attorneys: I always ask, when I get fourteen people in the box and you've finished all your strikes, if there is anyone with a hardship that they did not bring to our attention. I don't want jurors who are dropping off, and I inevitably have one or two. So when you do your strikes, you have to think one or two beyond what you would otherwise think in terms of your panel. Any questions about that? Defense counsel made no objection at this point, raising only a question about seating. As the voir dire progressed, the judge denied two of defense counsel's motions to strike jurors for cause. The first of the two, juror number 141, worked at the Department of Justice and knew both attorneys and the judge in the case. He said that he had been an Assistant United States Attorney for four years, from 1985 to 1989, and that he was currently a candidate for the position of United States Attorney. [1] When asked whether he would be willing to serve on a criminal jury and whether he could be fair and impartial, the juror replied that he might not mind the break and added, I think I'd be a terrific juror. He also said he would be willing to find appellant not guilty in a heartbeat if the government did not prove its case. Defense counsel moved to strike juror 141 for cause, but the judge denied the motion, saying, I've never struck anybody by employment only.... I don't see any cause beyond the fact that he's a former [ sic ] Justice employee. The judge also refused to strike juror number 94. This juror told the judge that four of his best friends were police officers (all outside the District of Columbia, in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs), that his sister was a lawyer who occasionally handled criminal cases, that he had a very hard view on guns and youth, and that he did not approve of young brothers with guns. However, the juror also said that he could apply the principle that a defendant was innocent until proven guilty, and that he thought he could listen fairly to the evidence presented. Defense counsel moved to strike juror 94 for cause. The judge denied the motion, stating that the juror's opinion about guns was probably the opinion of most people in the community and observing that the juror had said he could be fair and impartial. The judge suggested that counsel could use one of his peremptory strikes against juror 94 if he were actually selected to hear the case. Both the government and appellant then exercised their ten peremptory strikes for regular jurors. See Super. Ct.Crim. R. 24(b). The government also struck one of the two alternate jurors, but appellant passed on his peremptory strike of an alternate juror. See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 24(c)(2). After all the prospective jurors were seated in the jury box, the judge asked if there was anyone who had a hardship which they did not bring to our attention. Four jurors responded. Juror 871 stated that she had an out of state business meeting that would affect a promotion. Juror 966 said she was a student with both a full-time and a part-time job. Juror 930 had a landlord-tenant court date during the time scheduled for the trial in this case. Juror 91 said she was a selfemployed psychologist with no outside source of income and would lose money if forced to do jury duty for a whole week. The judge said she would give each side an additional peremptory strike, to be used any way you want, alternate or otherwise, because she was going to excuse three of the jurors with hardships; however, counsel could use the additional strike only for a new person coming onto the jury, not for someone already in the jury box. When defense counsel objected and asked instead for two additional strikes, the judge agreed, granting two more peremptory strikes to each side, rather than just one. The judge then excused jurors 871, 966, and 91. [2] One of those three had already been designated as an alternate, and by happenstance juror number 94, one of the next three persons on the venire list, was selected to replace her in the alternate's seat. Defense counsel then exercised the first of his two additional peremptory strikes to remove juror 94, but as luck would have it, he was replaced  again as an alternate  by juror 141. Counsel used the second of his additional peremptory strikes to remove juror 141. He was replaced by juror 168, to whom neither party had objected. After the voir dire was completed, but before the jurors were sworn, defense counsel raised a Batson challenge. [3] In rejecting this challenge, the trial judge said: We did here exercise more strikes, and I'll note this for the record. We filled the jury box with the ten strikes plus one for alternates, the alternate seats are seven and eight. At the time we were about to conclude our process, three [or] four jurors, four jurors raised what they viewed as substantial hardships, and the court felt ... that we could not keep them here for a whole week, given their positions, so I granted all  both sides two additional strikes for any new people because Mr. Horton [defense counsel] indicated that once  one additional strike wouldn't do it because he had some definite nos and he hadn't gone that far into the panel, and I understood his position, so I granted both sides two strikes of any new people, not old people coming onto the jury, but new ones. So, therefore, what we had was thirteen strikes per side, including the alternate. Only Mr. Horton passed, so everybody exercised all strikes, with the exception of defense counsel [who] passed on the very last of the thirteen. Or he passed on the alternate seat, but effectively defense counsel exercised twelve strikes, and the prosecution exercised thirteen. The jury was then sworn, and the trial began. At the end of the trial, both alternate jurors were excused with the thanks of the court and did not participate in the jury deliberations or the verdict.