ARKANSAS' DEATH QUALIFIED JURIES - HEY, DON'T I KNOW YOU? - Government - http://www.maxpagesplus.com/darkevilworld/Death_Qualified_Juries_Part

THE COURT: I'll draw twelve names at this time.

Prosecutor Kennedy: If I prove to you our case, what will your verdict be?

Juror 1: Guilty
Juror 2: Guilty

(This a question was asked of almost all the potential jurors before the end of the voir dire. It was an obvious intent to psychologically implant the concept "guilty" into their minds and to "test" for the pro-state bias of the jurors).

Prosecutor: The fellow mentioned from the Fifth Judicial Drug Task Force, Stephen Brown, is what I call a long-haired cop. All of us have in our mind what a law enforcement officer should look like...and you can understand that sometimes it may be necessary for a law enforcement officer involved in narcotics not to wear a uniform with shiny buttons. (The Defendant Gary Owens had long hair almost to his waste. Despite the fact the prosecutor knew full well that most of the jurors were already state biased since he personally knew most of them and that many had elected him to office, he still had such a concern with their possible red-neck prejudices toward hippies, etc., that he wanted to make sure no juror would negatively view the state's own witness cop with long hair. He also obviously used this cheap shot examination to create the innuendo that the defendant obviously must be an undesirable because he had long hair and is obviously not a narcotics cop. Almost all the jurors were asked this line of questions before voir dire ended).

In the effort to "life qualify" the jury:

Prosecutor Kennedy: The full range of punishment is from ten years, to forty years to life. Now I'm not standing here telling you that I am going to ask you to sentence these people to life (but later does ask it); but I'm telling you that I want you to be able to consider it. I don't want you to sit here and say, "Boy, if I find them guilty, I'm giving them life" or "Boy, I'm just (only) going to give them ten years." (At trial the words "I'm giving them life" were heavily emphasized, while "only" then years was set as contrast).

Defense Attorney: Do either of you know Mr. McCain? (Recall that this question had already been asked by the Court and some had admitted it then). Have you heard anything about the case before? I believe you gave a negative response before.

Lisa Wagoner: I know Mr. McCain. (No details).

Juror Spencer: Well, I know this case has been tried before is all. I was not aware of the particular results of the first trial. I found out because it's common knowledge that the case was tried before.

Defense Attorney: Your Honor, at this time I am going to move to quash the entire panel. He has heard about this case and specifically that this case has been tried before. This is a new trial and now this whole panel has heard that this case has been tried before. Mr. Spencer was asked by the Court originally if he knew anything about the case and he did not give a response at that time, while we could have prevented this prejudice if he had told us. We cannot get a fair trial now. Jurors understand that if a person is acquitted, they don't come back for a retrial.

COURT? Is that black letter law? Denied.

Prosecutor: Do any of you know someone who has a drug abuse problem?

Juror Reynolds: I have a cousin (who would not have had a problem if it were not for people like those damn hippie defendants).

As the state was "life qualifying" the next two jurors, the prosecutor misstated the law:

Defense: Your Honor, I'm going to object. That's not the range of punishment; plus he's already asked that.

Kennedy: Okay - ten to forty or life.

Court: I'll sustain (meaning the defense is right) that. The defense is correct with that.

Kennedy: (Making faces at the jurors) This sounds like the O.J. Simpson trial. (The dragged out and objection-riddled Simpson trial was, of course a national saga for months, where it was later determined in a civil trial that Simpson was guilty even though his "slick" lawyers had gotten him off the hook in the criminal trial. And, this highly improper and prejudicial injection of the O.J. Simpson trial was designed to turn the jurors against the defense for objecting to state's actual misstatement of the law).

Juror Profitt: As a teacher I worked with the Owen's children (yet another jurors who personally "knows" the parties in the case).

Defense: Do any of you know Mr. Prosecutor McCain?

Potential Juror Profitt: I've known him all my life. We went to the same school and to the same church. There's nothing in that fact that would prejudice me toward the defendants.

Defense: Knowing what you know would you want a juror with your frame of mind sitting in judgment of you?

Profitt: Yes, because I don't know anything about it other than that there was another trial. (Second juror who now ADMITS knowing that he knew the case was tried before. The tone of the answer also fairly reflects how reluctant this juror would be not to be allowed to be a juror in this case instead of a mere spectator).

With the next set of jurors:

Defense: Have either one of you heard anything about this case? And was the account of it pretty detailed.

Juror Golden. I just read about it in the paper when it first happened. Just what the normal Sheriff's report on it was in the Ozark paper. I'm not even sure I read it. It was in the paper, and that's all I read. I really don't know if I actually read it or not. If it was in the paper, I read it and if it wasn't, then I didn't. I served on a jury before and the verdict there was "Guilty." (Dismissed by peremptory strike).

After asking a juror whether she could impose a life term and getting her reluctant reply, the prosecutor continued until he got her to say "I can consider it." Then, with elation he said:

Kennedy: That's great! I mean....

Of the next jurors:

Defense: Do you know Prosecutor McCain?

Potential Juror Wilson: I've known him all my life. My mother used to baby-sit him and his younger brother. We used to throw rocks at each other. I don't think that would make me impartial. (Again, recall that none of the last jurors had admitted to knowing him when the judge himself first asked the question at the beginning of voir dire).

Defense: Do either of you know any of the police in this case?

Potential Juror Wilson: Not really, I only worked with them when I was on the Fire Department.

Defense: Your wife works at a local convenience store. Have you in any conversations at home heard about this case or learned about this case in any way.

Wilson: Seems like I heard about it by word of mouth, but I had done forgot about it until we come in here. (excused by peremptory strike).

Potential Juror McIntire: I read about it in the paper but I don't remember anything.

Defense: Mrs. McLaughlin, if I put on my case and the ONLY evidence put on was one witnesses getting up and saying nothing except "My name is David Hyden" (a state's witness known by the juror) what would your verdict be.

Juror: I don't know.

Prosecutor: (You're supposed to say!) It would be not guilty at that point. Right? Because all I asked was his name and no other evidence. Right?

McLaughlin: Oh, that's right. I respect him (the state's witness) a lot and he's not the only person involved with the state police that I'm involved with. I deal a lot with those guys. But I can be fair and impartial. (excused by defense).

Potential Juror Cook: I work with the wife of one of your witnesses and see him every so often and know her well. I could be fair.

The reader should be aware that virtually all jurors that were eventually stricken either for cause, or by the defense were found to be "Okay for the state." The prosecutor did not even have the integrity to himself find unacceptable for this case jurors who had such obvious and admitted biases.

In most Arkansas trials, the average juror is much less arrogant in admitting the things admitted in this case, and are much more versed with "hiding" their pro-state favored bent. Should this serious issue be re-litigated now, I feel that the courts should be made to confront their own words with unrelenting force. As stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in ruling AGAINST the defendants in Witt v. Wainwright:

...this standard likewise does not require that a juror's bias be proved with "unmistakable clarity." This is because determinations of juror bias cannot be reduced to question-and-answer sessions which obtain results in the manner of a catechism. What common sense should have realized experience has proved: many veniremen
simply cannot be asked enough questions to reach the point where their bias has been made "unmistakably clear"; or may wish to hide their true feelings. Despite this lack of clarity in the printed record, however, there will be situations where (the average person) is left with the definite impression that a prospective juror would be unable to faithfully and impartially apply the law.

For having dared to request a new trial after several of the State's witnesses had lied, Gary & Judy Owens were ultimately sentence in this new trial to two terms of life imprisonment without parole, plus 20 years based mainly on their possession of common household items, and 1500 milligrams of "speed."

On June 29, 1999, Stephen Brown, a key witness in this case and former coordinator for the Drug Task Force, pled guilty to (unrelated) possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, felony theft, and tampering with evidence. He was found to be in possession of 4 grams of cocaine, and three OUNCES of methamphetamine (while both the Owens' together had 1500 MILLIGRAMS). He had also been "stealing" evidence from the evidence room and a case against a local defendant had to be dropped because of it.

The Good Ol' Boy cop's sentence? 60 days in a regional detention facility, 6 years of probation, $1000 fine, and his driver's license suspended for 6 months...while Gary & Judy Owens had gotten two LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE AND 20 YEARS, consecutive.

No, in Arkansas trials there is an ABIDING APPEARANCE OF UNFAIRNESS through "voter bias" that cannot be tolerated at law any longer.

I think that attorneys should begin renewed challenge to this perverse situation in Arkansas by not only filing the appropriate pre-trial pleadings, but to move the courts to compel permitting voir dire of prospective jurors to determine whether they in fact did elect the particular judge or prosecutor in the case to office and to examine them as to whether that unduly influences their mandated impartial role. It will create a nightmare of problems at the trial court level which will eventually have to be revisited by the higher courts.

Also, I think that the several courts' proposition that the prosecutor (i.e. the state) has a right to death qualify jurors because he is entitled to seat a jury that will impose a death sentence is hollow and perverse. The real (although philosophical) fact is that in a criminal trial it is THE JUROR that is the voice of "We the People" - not the state. The state has no more of a right to "load the dice" AGAINST jury nullification as the defendant has a right to load the dice TOWARD jury nullification.

Perhaps Amnesty International, the ACLU, or any number of other champions of right and justice will agree.

God bless you.

Tell the Governor of Arkansas what you think

Explore Arkansas’ River of Blood

Follow the Blood Trail

Read stories of everyday life at the Cummins Unit

Meet Rolf Kaestel, read his Executive Clemency appeal and raise your voice to free him from the ADC

These are the men and women currently residing on Arkansas' Death Row

View the artistic works of men and women incarcerated in the Dark and Evil World

Murder through medical neglect in America's prisons

Sign Guestbook

View Guestbook

LINDA TANT MILLER

WASHINGTON

USA

tantsy1@msn.com

Visitors: 01091

Page Updated Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:54am EST