VOIRDIRE IN LOUISIANACRIMINALTRIALS DennisJ.Waldron Judge(Retired) OrleansParishCriminalCourt January20,2016
I. RIGHT TO VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION A. For Defense LA. Constitution Art. 1 Sec 17 (A) provides a right to full Voir Dire examination of prospective jurors and to challenge jurors peremptorily. B. For Prosecution LA C. Cr. P. Art. 786 provides the court, the state and the defendant shall have the right to examine prospective jurors. The scope of the examination shall be within the discretion of the court. C. Improper Curtailment of Voir Dire Examination by Defense 1. Brumley 320 So 2d 129 (LA 1975) 2. Dyer 682 So 2d 278 (LA App 1 st. Cir.) 3. Parker 76 So 3d 55 (LA App 4 th Cir.) D. No improper curtailment of Voir Dire examination by defense 1. Williams 101 So 3d 105 (LA App 4 th Cir.) E. Individual Voir Dire 1. Copeland 530 So 2d 526 (LA 1988) a. Discretionary call for trial judge b. Absent a showing of special circumstances, judge may refuse request c. Fact that it is a capital case does not in and of itself establish the existence of special circumstances. 2. Berniardo 163 So 3d 71 (LA App 4 th Cir.) No basis for allowing individual Voir Dire. Second degree murder conviction affirmed. F. Can judge place time limit on Voir Dire? Yes, as long as it s reasonable and there is no abuse of discretion. 1. Royal 807 So 2d 962 (LA 5 th Cir.) 2. Nora 143 So 3d 1237 (LA. App. 4 th Cir.) G. Length of Voir Dire without recess may be improper. 1. Allen 800 So 2d 378 (LA App. 4 th Cir.) II. Swearing of Jurors A. Prospective jurors shall first be sworn to answer all questions truthfully. LA C. Cr. P. Art. 786
1. Jury trial formally commences when first prospective juror so sworn LA C. Cr. P. Art.761 B. Jurors selected to serve on jury shall be sworn to be fair and impartial twice. 1. Shall be first sworn immediately upon being accepted by both sides LA C. Cr. P. Art. 788 2. When entire jury selected, jurors shall again be so sworn. LA. C. Cr.P. At. 790 a. It is at this point that jeopardy attaches. LA C. Cr. P. Art. 591 III. Peremptory Challenges A. Each side entitled to six (6) for six (6) person jury and twelve (12) for twelve person jury. LA. C. Cr. P. Art. 799. B. Shall be made and communicated to the court in side bar conference LA. C. Cr. P. Art. 795 (B) (2) 1. LA Supreme Court rule 19.0- peremptory challenges shall be written. 2. Co- defendants attorneys shall be allowed to confer privately with each other so as to allow peremptory challenges to be exercised in intelligent fashion. Reversible error not to allow consultation between attorneys. Nelson 85 So 3d 21 (LA 2012); Kennedy 584 So 2d 702 (LA App. 1 st Cir.) C. Cannot be based solely upon race or gender- LA. C. Cr. P. Art. 795 (c) 1. Batson v. Kentucky 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986) a. Racial discrimination 2. Alabama v. J. E. B. 114 S. Ct. 1419 (1994) a. Gender discrimination 3. Powers v. Ohio 111 S. Ct. 1364 (1991) a. Race of defendant not relevant in deciding if there is Batson violation by prosecutor. White defendant may challenge prosecutor peremptorily excusing black juror. (Same rule will apply to gender based challenges.) D. Reverse Batson challenges prohibited 1. Georgia v. McCollum 112 S. Ct. 2348 (1992)
2. LA C. Cr. P. Art. 795 (c) E. Proceeding and ruling on claim of purposeful discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. 1. LA. C. Cr. P. Art. 795 (c) (e) a. Party must object and make prima facie case of discrimination b. Race/gender neutral reason for exercising peremptory challenge must then be determined to exist; otherwise thye peremptory challenge will not be allowed. 2. Miller El v. Drietke 125 S. Ct. 2317 (2005) a. Objecting party may rely on all relevant circumstances in making out a prima case of purposeful discrimination including evidence outside the four corners of the case (statistical analysis of the venire, side- by- side comparison of struck and empaneled jurors, disparate questioning and evidence of historical discrimination.) b. Discriminatory intent established. Prosecution struck 10 of 11 eligible black jurors. 3. Collier 553 So. 2d 815 (LA 1989) a. First Louisiana Supreme Court ruling where purposeful discrimination is found. The record in this case strongly suggests that the prosecutor, already frustrated in defendant s first trial for armed robbery by a hung jury which included three black citizens, pursued a strategy in the second trial of limiting the number of blacks on jury to two; thus making conviction possible even if both blacks voted to acquit. The court noted in footnote 14 that it is not suggesting that jurors tend to vote strictly on racial grounds. However, the court says it does consider whether the prosecutor s belief that black jurors will vote for black defendants played a role in prosecutor s motive. Court must attempt to derive true intent of the prosecutor in exercising his challenges. 4. Maxwell 17 So. 3d 505 (LA App. 4 th Cir.) Batson violation. In deciding if purposeful discrimination has been established, court must carefully scrutinize the plausibility of party s explanation for peremptory strike by evaluating the party s credibility. This is
done by assessing not only whether the party s demeanor belies a discriminatory intent but also whether the juror s demeanor can credibly be said to have to have exhibited a basis or the striking. (citing Snyder v. Louisiana 128 S. Ct. 1203) (2008) 5. No Batson Violations a. Bender 152 So 3d 126 (LA. 2014) b. Miller 160 So 3d 1069 (LA App. 4 th Cir) IV. Challenges for Cause A. General LA. C. Cr. P. Art. 797 1. Juror lacks basic qualifications 2. Juror not impartial 3. Juror related to one of parties 4. Juror cannot accept law 5. Juror served on Grand Jury that found the indictment or on Petit Jury where defendant was on trial B. Specific Only for State LA. C. Cr. P. At. 798 1. Juror is prejudiced against law involved. 2. Against the death penalty if it is a capital case a. Would automatically vote for life b. Cannot be impartial due to attitude about death penalty 3. Cannot convict upon circumstantial evidence C. Burton 43 So. 3d 1073 (LA App. 4 th Cir) Challenges for cause should be granted even when prospective juror declares his ability to remain impartial, if the juror s responses, as a whole, reveal facts from which bias, prejudice, or inability to render judgements according to law may be reasonable implied. D. Police officers are not to be automatically excused for cause 1. Deruise 802 So 2d 1224 (LA 2001) 2. Boyd 104 So. 3d 642 (LA App 4 th Cir) 3. Aguillard 158 So 3d 976 (LA App 4 th Cir) If officer worked with witnesses and investigators in case to be tied; then he must be excused
V. Removal of Jurors after swearing A. LA. C. Cr. Pro. Art. 796 Juror determined to be incompetent can be replaced with another juror (prior to first witness being sworn) B. Back Strikes 1. C. Cr. P. Art. 799.1 2. Taylor 669 So. 2d 364 (LA 1996) 3. Frith 151 So 3d 946 (LA App. 4 th Cir) 4. Lewis 112 So 3d 796 (LA. 2013) 5. Patterson 112 So 3d 806 (LA. 2013) VI. VII. Tales Jurors A. LA C. P. Art. 785 Alternate Jurors A. LA C. Cr. P. Art. 789