No question, a juror that expresses reservation could also have reservations about conviction...but not as a rule, most people have reservations about the death penalty before they hear the evidence. It’s hard to say you would definitely kill someone before you know all the facts. With that said, whenever a juror says...under oath that they will follow the judges instructions and the law...they cannot be excluded “for cause” for expressing a reservation. That is settled law in every jurisdiction.
I was a very strong supporter of the death penalty many years ago. I am no longer convinced the death penalty is appropriate in most "death penalty cases". Having had a few experiences with prosecutors and cops, I don't trust them to comply with Brady requirements.
Also don't trust that judges will allow certain defenses such as alternative suspect arguments and refusing to suppress evidence that shouldn't be suppressed.
Another big problem for me is the judicially created whole refusal to reconsider obvious problems with problem convictions because of the whole lending of a strong preference to "finality of a conviction". That is total bullshit. If there is strong evidence the convicted person didn't or couldn't have committed the crime, appellate courts should be quick to grant new trials no matter how long ago the case finished appeals. How is that justice? Judges and prosecutors are all to willing to allow an innocent person waste away in prison just to save themselves embarrassment of admitting they and the jury got it wrong.
What do you think?