Opinion ID: 1206820
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: voir dire examination of agnes engum

Text: BY MR. FOUSER: Q. Mrs. Engum, do you know anything about this case other than what you have heard in the courtroom here today? A. I don't know anything about it. I don't read the papers. Q. Have you seen anything on TV about it? A. No, I've not paid that much attention. Q. Judge Lodge explained earlier there are three charges against Don; murder, first-degree murder; burglary; and grand theft. Do you understand that each one of those charges has to be considered separately when you go to the jury room and deliberate? A. Yes. Q. It is possible that maybe you would find him guilty of one of the offenses but yet not find him of two or any other combination? A. Yes. Q. Would you require Don to prove to you that he is innocent of these charges? A. No, I think the evidence you have to go by. Q. You understand that it is the burden of the prosecuting attorney to prove all of the accusations he has made beyond a reasonable doubt? A. Yes, I understand that. Q. You have been a juror before? A. Yes, two times. Q. From that experience, I'm sure you realize that a defendant has no burden of putting on any evidence if he so chooses? A. Yes, I was on one that was that way. Q. Does that make you think that the defendant is more likely than not guilty because he does not testify? A. No. Q. And I guess that the ultimate issue is if you can follow Judge Lodge's instructions carefully, do you promise us you will do that? A. Yes. MR. FOUSER: I will pass this juror for cause. Tr. Vol. 5, pp. 37-78 (emphasis added). Such was the end of the first round of examining the jurors. Defense counsel was not able to mount a single challenge for cause, and might just as well have foregone the exercise. Following the state's first peremptory challenge, another juror was called and examined, but first by the court: