Posted on 03/04/2003 5:20:59 PM PST by Marianne
As jury selection begins, questionnaires look for signs of bias on volatile points
Prospective jurors in the murder trial of James C. Kopp are being asked whether their views on the issue of abortion would affect their objectivity in the case.
Jury selection began in earnest Monday morning in the trial of Kopp, 48, who is charged with the October 1998 sniper slaying of Dr. Barnett A. Slepian, an obstetrician/gynecologist and abortion provider, who was shot as he stood in his Amherst home. Out of a potential jury pool of 500, 150 people filed through the courtroom of Erie County Judge Michael L. D'Amico.
Forty-four people were excused for hardship reasons. The rest were issued 16-page questionnaires containing 68 questions, several dealing with abortion.
Kopp, a longtime anti-abortion activist, has been jailed since his arrest in France last March. He also is to stand trial in federal court on charges of obstructing access to abortions.
In an exclusive jailhouse interview with reporters from The Buffalo News, Kopp admitted shooting the doctor but said he intended only to wound him to stop him from performing abortions. That report appeared Nov. 20 in The News.
The questionnaire, which guarantees confidentiality and carries the weight of a statement under oath, asks jurors whether they read that interview or are aware of its contents.
In a section of the questionnaire requiring "yes" or "no" answers, the questions include:
o "If you are aware of the interview or have heard about this case from other sources, have you formed any opinions about the guilt or innocence of the Defendant James Kopp?"
o "What the defendant intended may be an issue in this case. Are you able to consider the evidence on the issue of "intent' and follow the Judge's instructions on the law concerning "intent' despite any opinions you may have formed about this case in the past?"
During a break in Monday's proceedings, Bruce A. Barket, the chief defense attorney, said that he wants the jury to "decide this case on abortion" and insisted that Kopp's stated intent in the shooting "is certainly an issue."
However, Deputy District Attorney Joseph J. Marusak insisted that the trial is solely about murder. "I don't intend to get into a debate about abortion," Marusak said.
In the section of the questionnaire dealing with abortion, jurors are asked to decide which of nine statements most accurately represent their feelings about the issue. The statements include:
o "I am personally, morally, or religiously opposed to abortion and believe the practice is murder and should be outlawed under every circumstance."
o "Abortion is a right guaranteed by law."
This preliminary round of jury selection will continue through Wednesday. Under the judge's plan, questioning of prospective jurors by prosecutors and defense attorneys will begin March 12.
Both sides may have up to 20 prospective jurors removed from the panel for reasons they do not have to explain in open court.
Testimony is scheduled to begin March 17.
Four anti-abortion activists from the group Army of God showed up outside the courthouse Monday morning bearing large signs calling for the acquittal of "baby defender" Kopp. They left before the jury-selection process began but returned to the downtown courthouse shortly before 5 p.m.
Also Monday, defense attorneys complained to D'Amico about prosecutors' having what the defense considers an unfair advantage regarding access to criminal records of prospective jurors. D'Amico responded that he has authorized the hiring of private detectives to help with the Kopp defense.
Marusak told the judge that he has no problem turning over any criminal files that prosecutors obtain but that those records are available for only local arrests. Prosecutors statewide already have been denied access to state files on criminal records for use in jury-selection proceedings, he noted.
The prosecutor, meanwhile, complained to the judge about what he called "eleventh-hour demands" by Kopp's attorneys for prosecution files on the criminal case. Marusak assured the judge that the defense team will have the full prosecution evidence file before testimony begins.
"We have the burden of proof - they don't," Marusak told the judge.
If the 50 states' legislative bodies had the "right" to conduct meaningful debate there would probably be sufficient room for some steam to escape before the boiler explodes as happens with some regularity.
As matters stand now, we have the abomination of partial birth abortions; we have "abortion at any cost" folks (many of whom by the way are just as nuts as the abortion clinic bombers) whose primary mission in life is to show the "pro-life nuts" just how many babies they can kill.
If there was some opportunity for legitimate legislative debate all of the problems would not disappear, but it is a safe bet that many of the extremes would have to move to the middle and some consensus might emerge.
Don't get me wrong; I am opposed to abortion, but I am not asking the Supreme Court to say that folks who disagree with me be Constitutionally deprived of a voice on the issue. I merely ask for legitimate legislative debate in the 50 state legislatures. While they will not all get everything right, they will do better than a majority of 9 old folks who cannot be fired no matter how badly they screw something up. An added bonus would be that judical nominations would not resemble political campaigns so much as they currently do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.