Filed: Aug. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER CONCERNING VOIR DIRE ON DEFENDANT'S CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS GREG KAYS , Chief District Judge . The Court previously directed the parties to brief when and how, if at all, the venire should be questioned regarding Defendant's prior convictions. After carefully considering the parties' responses (Docs. 331, 338), the Court finds that the statement 1 given to perspective jurors on page 14 of the juror questionnaire is probably sufficient. However, to be certain that no juror is seated who
Summary: ORDER CONCERNING VOIR DIRE ON DEFENDANT'S CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS GREG KAYS , Chief District Judge . The Court previously directed the parties to brief when and how, if at all, the venire should be questioned regarding Defendant's prior convictions. After carefully considering the parties' responses (Docs. 331, 338), the Court finds that the statement 1 given to perspective jurors on page 14 of the juror questionnaire is probably sufficient. However, to be certain that no juror is seated who ..
More
ORDER CONCERNING VOIR DIRE ON DEFENDANT'S CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS
GREG KAYS, Chief District Judge.
The Court previously directed the parties to brief when and how, if at all, the venire should be questioned regarding Defendant's prior convictions. After carefully considering the parties' responses (Docs. 331, 338), the Court finds that the statement1 given to perspective jurors on page 14 of the juror questionnaire is probably sufficient. However, to be certain that no juror is seated who would automatically vote for the death penalty or refuse to consider mitigating evidence because of Defendant's prior murder convictions, consistent with Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 726-27 (1992), the Court will ask two questions:
1. If Mr. Jones is found guilty of the first-degree murder of Mr. Baker, then this case would proceed to the penalty phase where you would consider punishment. At this point, you would consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances. As you may recall, mitigating circumstances are circumstances about the crime, the characteristics of the defendant, or anything else that would suggest that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is the appropriate punishment. Would you automatically refuse to consider mitigating circumstances, despite the applicable law, because Mr. Jones has been previously convicted in three separate murder cases?
2. Would you automatically vote for the death penalty because Mr. Jones has been previously convicted for his involvement in three separate murder cases?
The Court will not ask any of the other questions proffered by the parties in their briefs. If either party would like to ask any of these suggested questions during their "follow-up" time during voir dire, they shall first seek leave of Court out of the jury's hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
