During the first six days of the jury pre-selection process in the Parkland school shooting capital case, prospective jurors who have not been excused for a hardship have been handed a jury questionnaire, and a day in May to be brought back for future questioning.
The document includes general background questions to include marital status, ethnicity, and the age, education and employment of household members. It includes instructions for prospective jurors to answer the questions “individually” and not share the answers they provide to other jurors.
The questionnaire asks about any organizations potential jurors have supported, explores possible connections to the criminal justice system, their news consumption preferences and social media usage.
The final pages begin to tackle any known connections to the incident, the location of the deadly school shooting, and knowledge of the case. This includes asking if they, or someone they know, works for Broward County Public Schools. They are also asked if any family members have attended, worked or volunteered at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Other questions explore if they know anyone involved with the case.
Question 70 then asks a question central to the effort to select a fair and impartial 12-member, death-qualified jury: “There are two possible punishments for a person that is convicted of first-degree murder: life without the possibility of parole, or death. Without regard to this particular case, what are your general feelings about the death penalty?”
With guilt already established when Nikolas Cruz entered guilty pleas in October to shooting and killing 17 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students and staff on Valentine’s Day 2018, the jury in this penalty phase of the trial will be asked if they can be fair and impartial when it comes to sentencing.
Prospective jurors are also being asked to individually answer if there is “anything about this case” that may prevent them from following a requirement that they “take an oath that they will decide the facts in this case according to the evidence and the law,” and whether “there is any matter that you should call to the court’s attention that may have any bearing on your qualifications to serve as a juror, or that may affect your ability to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence or the lack thereof and the court’s instruction on the law.”
Legal analyst David Bogenschutz told Local 10′s Christina Vazquez the questionnaire “cues up the issues” for attorneys, who in an upcoming phase of the weeks-long jury selection process will begin asking more probative questions to include understanding their death penalty views.
Related Link: Plenty at stake in Parkland shooter trial and shouldn’t be rushed, lawyers say
During a hearing last week, Assistant State Attorney Carolyn McCann told the judge that “case law is very specific that each side gets to rehabilitate a juror who expresses a view and that takes time,” adding, “it is not a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ -- that’s not a two-minute, sometimes it is not a five-or 10-minute conversation -- there is a back and forth.”
During the penalty phase, the state will present jurors with evidence of aggravated factors they want them to consider.
Florida statutes state the jury will determine if the state has proved at least one aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt: “A finding that an aggravating factor exists must be unanimous. If the jury does not unanimously find at least one aggravating factor, the defendant is ineligible for the sentence of death.”
Aggravating factors can include that the “defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons” and that the capital offense was “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,” or that it was a homicide “committed in a cold, calculated and premediated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.”
The defense will present evidence of mitigating circumstances they will want the jury to consider. In this case, this is anticipated to be evidence related to Cruz’s background, childhood and history of behavioral issues.
Related Link: Jury can see Parkland shooter’s Instagram, judge says
According to Florida statutes, mitigating circumstances can include that the defendant “has no history of prior criminal activity” or that the “capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.”
Related Link: Discussion of Parkland shooter’s mental health: ‘Hatred’ one of personalities who committed crimes
Cruz was 19 years old at the time of the tragic school shooting. Another mitigating circumstance a jury can consider per Florida statutes is the “age of the defendant at the time of the crime.”
Prospective jurors are also anticipated to hear victim impact evidence.
Related Link: Victim impact statements take center stage in Parkland pre-trial hearing
Jury selection is set to resume April 25. This week, the court reserved for attorneys to schedule witness depositions. The start of trial testimony is now expected to begin June 13.
VIEW BELOW: Jury questionnaire issued for penalty phase of Parkland school shooter’s penalty phase trial.
Continue reading...
The document includes general background questions to include marital status, ethnicity, and the age, education and employment of household members. It includes instructions for prospective jurors to answer the questions “individually” and not share the answers they provide to other jurors.
The questionnaire asks about any organizations potential jurors have supported, explores possible connections to the criminal justice system, their news consumption preferences and social media usage.
The final pages begin to tackle any known connections to the incident, the location of the deadly school shooting, and knowledge of the case. This includes asking if they, or someone they know, works for Broward County Public Schools. They are also asked if any family members have attended, worked or volunteered at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Other questions explore if they know anyone involved with the case.
Question 70 then asks a question central to the effort to select a fair and impartial 12-member, death-qualified jury: “There are two possible punishments for a person that is convicted of first-degree murder: life without the possibility of parole, or death. Without regard to this particular case, what are your general feelings about the death penalty?”
With guilt already established when Nikolas Cruz entered guilty pleas in October to shooting and killing 17 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students and staff on Valentine’s Day 2018, the jury in this penalty phase of the trial will be asked if they can be fair and impartial when it comes to sentencing.
Prospective jurors are also being asked to individually answer if there is “anything about this case” that may prevent them from following a requirement that they “take an oath that they will decide the facts in this case according to the evidence and the law,” and whether “there is any matter that you should call to the court’s attention that may have any bearing on your qualifications to serve as a juror, or that may affect your ability to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence or the lack thereof and the court’s instruction on the law.”
Legal analyst David Bogenschutz told Local 10′s Christina Vazquez the questionnaire “cues up the issues” for attorneys, who in an upcoming phase of the weeks-long jury selection process will begin asking more probative questions to include understanding their death penalty views.
Related Link: Plenty at stake in Parkland shooter trial and shouldn’t be rushed, lawyers say
During a hearing last week, Assistant State Attorney Carolyn McCann told the judge that “case law is very specific that each side gets to rehabilitate a juror who expresses a view and that takes time,” adding, “it is not a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ -- that’s not a two-minute, sometimes it is not a five-or 10-minute conversation -- there is a back and forth.”
During the penalty phase, the state will present jurors with evidence of aggravated factors they want them to consider.
Florida statutes state the jury will determine if the state has proved at least one aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt: “A finding that an aggravating factor exists must be unanimous. If the jury does not unanimously find at least one aggravating factor, the defendant is ineligible for the sentence of death.”
Aggravating factors can include that the “defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons” and that the capital offense was “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,” or that it was a homicide “committed in a cold, calculated and premediated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.”
The defense will present evidence of mitigating circumstances they will want the jury to consider. In this case, this is anticipated to be evidence related to Cruz’s background, childhood and history of behavioral issues.
Related Link: Jury can see Parkland shooter’s Instagram, judge says
According to Florida statutes, mitigating circumstances can include that the defendant “has no history of prior criminal activity” or that the “capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.”
Related Link: Discussion of Parkland shooter’s mental health: ‘Hatred’ one of personalities who committed crimes
Cruz was 19 years old at the time of the tragic school shooting. Another mitigating circumstance a jury can consider per Florida statutes is the “age of the defendant at the time of the crime.”
Prospective jurors are also anticipated to hear victim impact evidence.
Related Link: Victim impact statements take center stage in Parkland pre-trial hearing
Jury selection is set to resume April 25. This week, the court reserved for attorneys to schedule witness depositions. The start of trial testimony is now expected to begin June 13.
VIEW BELOW: Jury questionnaire issued for penalty phase of Parkland school shooter’s penalty phase trial.
Continue reading...
