551 U.S. 1 (2007) Cited 394 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that juror's answers "on their face" permitted trial court to strike juror for cause, when juror "stated six times that he could consider the death penalty or follow the law" but interspersed those statements with "more equivocal" ones about how he would have to give it "some thought"
Holding that "it was not error to refuse to permit counsel to ask questions based upon an account of the facts of this case, or to ask a juror to consider particular facts that would cause him or her to impose the death penalty," because "`The Witherspoon-Witt voir dire seeks to determine only the views of the prospective jurors about capital punishment in the abstract. . . . The inquiry is directed to whether, without knowing the specifics of the case, the juror has an "open mind" on the penalty determination.'"
In People v. Carasi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1263, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 190 P.3d 616, we found forfeiture where the defendant had exercised a peremptory challenge to remove the prospective juror in question, had exhausted all of his peremptory challenges, and had asked "for more" peremptory challenges. (Id., at p. 1290, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 190 P.3d 616.)
In People v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, 588-589, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 703, 352 P.3d 289 (Leon), the entire voir dire of nearly every potential juror consisted of four questions addressing the Witt death-qualification standard.