Canfield v. Lumpkin presented an ineffective-assistance claim arising from voir dire. The record showed the following exchange with the juror in question, followed by general questions to the panel about the ability ot be fair, with no individual followup questioning of this juror:
The panel majority found no error sufficient to justify habeas relief, as well as a lack of sufficient prejudice. A dissent saw matters otherwise: “[T]he trial judge and counsel were acutely aware of the necessary care that must attend jury selection and the challenges of this case. Our question is whether they succeeded in protecting the jury room. Unlike the majority, I conclude that they did not. During voir dire, a prospective juror volunteered that she felt the defendant was guilty and would probably vote to convict him even if the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither counsel nor the judge followed up with her. So, she served on the jury that first convicted Jerry Lee Canfield and, then, free to choose from a menu of sentences from 5 years to life imprisonment, sentenced him to 50 years in prison without the possibility of parole.” No. 18-10431 (May 18, 2021).
The post Disqualifying Juror Bias? appeared first on 600 Camp.
from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3uj3KyU
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment