It's a death penalty case. I totally understand why counsel for the defendant, who's out of peremptory challenges, wants this juror excused for cause. What I don't understand is why the prosecution doesn't realize that letting this juror on creates serious, serious risks of reversal on appeal.
Which, of course, happens. Unanimously. So we now have to redo the entire -- very, very long -- trial yet again. Years later.
One of the two victims of the murder was the chief of police of the small town at issue. Here's the juror's contacts with that victim:
"Juror No. 5 was forthcoming and open as to his associations with Chief Speer, the fact that he had heard details from law enforcement on the day of the killings and thereafter, and that he followed the case in the press. He wrote in his questionnaire that he would have difficulty keeping an open mind and that the accusation of killing a police officer would prevent him from being fair and impartial. He explained that he had known Chief Speer for a number of years, had business dealings with him, knew his wife, would have coffee with him from time to time, and campaigned for him when he ran for sheriff. He added: “in that sense, a friendship existed.” He was on his way to attend Speer’s funeral but was called away as he was approaching the service. He knew 14 of the potential witnesses. When asked if his experience as a police employee would make it difficult for him to be fair and impartial, he replied: “I would like to think not, but of course being in law enforcement, entrenched in it for 15 years might be a little difficult.” Nevertheless, Juror No. 5 said he could be a fair and impartial juror in a case where someone was accused of murdering Chief Speer, could set aside what he had heard from law enforcement sources, could fairly evaluate the testimony of people he knew, and could “wait until the end of the case . . . until both sides had presented their case and argued the case” before making up his mind."
Come one. You're not letting that person on the jury, right? We have actual neutral prospective jurors sitting there and available. No reason to put someone like this on.
Even if they say -- just like we all would want to say (and believe) -- that they could be neutral, just select another juror.
Unless you're affirmatively desirous of an incredibly expensive appellate reversal and retrial.
