Opinion ID: 20143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: wrongful excusal of venire member palacios

Text: 64 Soria contends that the trial court's excusal for cause of venire member Palacios violated his right to an impartial jury. As set forth previously, the standard for determining when a venire member may be excluded for cause is whether the prospective juror's 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. at 424, 105 S.Ct. at 852 (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). A state trial court's refusal of a petitioner's challenge for cause is a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness. Jones v. Butler, 864 F.2d at 362. 65 During the voir dire examination of venire member Palacios, the trial court granted the State's motion to excuse her for cause based on her views regarding the death penalty. Soria now asserts that Palacios related to the trial judge that, if the evidence required, she could answer the punishment issues affirmatively. She repeatedly answered the prosecutor's questions in a way that would not require that she be excused for cause under the Witt standard, Soria argues. Finally, Soria claims there was no reason for the prosecutor to continue questioning Palacios regarding these views other than an attempt to elicit vacillation. 66 Soria correctly states that Palacios initially responded affirmatively, albeit equivocally, to the trial court's inquiry regarding whether she could answer yes to the punishment issues knowing that the death penalty would be assessed. 16 MRS. PALACIOS: I guess I am going to say yes. After Palacios's response, the trial court stated All right. Let's move on. The prosecutor did make another inquiry with respect tothat line of questioning--approximately one-half page of transcript--but then heeded the court's instruction to move on and began to question Palacios regarding, among other things, her views on jury sequestration and the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Subsequently--twelve pages later in the transcript--the prosecutor asked Palacios if she had any questions regarding anything that we have talked about, and Palacios indicated that the question is still in my mind in regard to imposing the death penalty. 67 The record therefore repudiates Soria's assertion that the prosecutor's repetitive questioning evoked Palacios's vacillation. It was Palacios herself who returned to the subject of her views on the death penalty. 68 In granting the State's motion to excuse Palacios for cause, the trial court found as follows: 69 Mrs. Palacios, under the circumstances and listening to your answers in their entirety, and I know it has been a long time. We have been at this right at an hour and a half, with a little short break. 70 I feel like viewing your answers in its totality that you wouldn't be able to fairly consider the law in regard to the death penalty as the procedure was explained to you. 71    72 I appreciate very much you being down here and participating to this extent and I know it was difficult for you. 73 MRS. PALACIOS: It was. 74 THE COURT: And I certainly understand that. And I watched you and listened to you. And I know how hard it was for you. 75 But listening to your answers and watching you and observing how you were affected by struggling with all of these things, I am going to go ahead and excuse you at this time. 76 (emphasis added). 77 On Soria's direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals found as follows: 78 Palacios' answers reflect that she was overwhelmed by the gravity of the task and was virtually unable to give a direct answer. Although at one point in responding to questions from the trial court she stated that she could answer the special issues, yes according to the evidence, that response was an anomaly. She continually expressed difficulty with the punishment phase of trial and evaded a direct response as to whether she could follow the law. Palacios repeatedly stated that the task as a juror on punishment would be hard for her, but would not state whether or not she could or could not follow the law. 79    80 Review of Palacios' entire voir dire testimony reflects that she was tormented by the gravity of the task to the extent that she was unable to directly answer the State's questions as to whether she could follow the law and answer the issues according to the evidence. In view of the equivocal and indirect nature of Palacios' responses, and her apparent struggle over whether she could remain impartial, we defer to the trial court. 81 Soria v. State, 933 S.W.2d at 61-62. 82 We agree. The record indicates that Palacios was virtually unable to respond directly to the prosecutor's inquiry regarding whether she could affirmatively answer the special issues if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, with the knowledge that such answers would cause the trial court to assess the death penalty. Although she initially stated to the trial judge she could do so, she later gave the following responses: I am as confused as you are. I probably am not qualified; Probably I would vote maybe no to one sothat at the same time maybe, you know, not the death penalty; I guess in all sincerity, it probably -- in this case, I probably could not go for the death penalty because of my four children; I will just go with not. No. 83 The trial court's finding that Palacios's views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of her duties as a juror in accordance with her instructions and her oath has not been rebutted by Soria with clear and convincing evidence. As such, Soria has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 84