Posted on 08/19/2003 4:47:27 AM PDT by csvset
Sniper trial jury screening debated Last updated: 11:48 PM
By JON FRANK, The Virginian-Pilot
© August 19, 2003
|
| John Allen Muhammad
|
Related: Judge won't let Muhammad's defense hire jury consultant
|
At a hearing Monday in Manassas, Circuit Judge LeRoy F. Millette began narrowing down the questions that possible jurors will be asked in writing before attorneys start choosing who will decide Muhammad's fate.
The judge also denied a request by Muhammad's attorneys to receive state money to hire a consultant who would help them screen potential jurors.
Millette said he was ``absolutely confident'' that Muhammad's attorneys, Jonathan Shapiro and Peter Greenspun, have the experience and ability to effectively screen potential jurors without a consultant's help.
Millette last month decided to move the trial from Prince William County to Virginia Beach. Last fall's sniper shootings in the Washington area so terrorized Northern Virginians that a fair trial would be impossible there, the judge said.
Muhammad, 42, and his companion, Lee Boyd Malvo, 18, face multiple charges in the shootings.
Earlier this summer, a judge in Fairfax County moved Malvo's trial to Chesapeake for the same reason. The Malvo trial is scheduled to start Nov. 10.
The pair also face murder charges in Maryland and Washington, and are suspects in fatal shootings in several other states. Police suspect them in 13 deaths and about 20 shootings.
Monday's hearing focused on which written questions can be asked of potential jurors. At the hearing, Millette ruled out some questions about pretrial publicity and whether potential jurors have ever been accused of a crime.
Still to be determined are what questions jurors will be asked orally by attorneys during jury selection. Arguments on those issues will be heard Aug. 26.
To make way for Muhammad's trial, Virginia Beach court officials have cleared the docket for the second week of October to make room for jury selection. Millette said all other jury trials have been postponed.
Millette said 120 potential jurors will be called initially. From that group, attorneys must choose a panel of 27 eligible jurors. Each side then will be able to remove six potential jurors to arrive at 15 -- 12 jurors and three alternates.
Millette said individual questioning of jurors, a process not usually used in selecting a jury, might be allowed. ``I am not opposed to it if I think it is necessary,'' Millette said.
Most questions on the written jury questionnaire will be biographical, attorneys said.
In their arguments about jury selection, attorneys revealed how differently they view the case.
Shapiro said Muhammad's case is special and ``above all others.'' But prosecutors said that opinion represented ``a troubling theme'' about the sniper case that is emerging from the defense team.
``It is no more serious than any of the other murder cases that come before the court,'' said James A. Willett, an assistant commonwealth's attorney in Prince William County.
Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert said he expects to call more than 100 witnesses from at least five states.
Bringing them to Hampton Roads will be a complicated procedure for a trial that could take up to eight weeks, Ebert said. He said his office is working with airlines to have witnesses flown to the area just before they testify.
Also at the hearing, Millette granted Muhammad's attorneys two additional weeks for more extensive tests of Muhammad's mental state.
Shapiro said the testing must be done outside the jail where Muhammad is being held. He did not specify what type of tests are needed. Millette asked him to provide that information to prosecutors before the testing begins.
Shapiro said obtaining information about Muhammad's past from sources in such locations as Washington state and Louisiana has been difficult.
Although Millette granted the extra time, he said Aug. 29 is the deadline.
Millette said he would decide next week whether to hold a Sept. 10 hearing on a claim by Muhammad's attorneys that Virginia's death penalty statute is unconstitutional.
That is one of several motions filed by Muhammad's attorneys in the past two weeks.
Another alleges that evidence is being withheld that might indicate Muhammad did not have Malvo brainwashed, as some have theorized since the two were arrested last year.
According to court papers, Muhammad's attorneys believe that some interviews conducted by the sniper task force indicated that no such control existed.
Obtaining that kind of evidence could help them defend Muhammad, the motion says.
Millette said he would consider the motion during an upcoming hearing.
Reach Jon Frank at 222-5122 or jon.frank@pilotonline.com
I suppose, when he is convicted, he can claim a mistrial based on the "obvious bias" against him by the Zionist lawyers and their criminal conspirators.
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.