IN THE FIFTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PARISH OF PEINE DE MORT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. _____

=================================

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN CLIENT, Defendant

=================================

MOTION FOR JURY QUESTIONNAIRE

COMES NOW, JOHN CLIENT, by counsel, and moves this Court pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16 & 17 of the Louisiana Constitution to order the use of a jury questionnaire to shorten voir dire and assist both parties in jury selection.

1. If Mr. Client is to receive a fair trial, it is vital that the information available to the prosecution and the defense concerning potential jurors is accurate and thorough. See, e.g., Coleman v. Kemp, 778 F.2d 1487, 1542 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1164 (1986) (voir dire procedures inadequate to uncover prejudice); Jordan v. Lippman, 763 F.2d 1265 (11th Cir. 1985) (jury selection procedures must be adequate to unearth prejudice, failure to expose potential prejudice of jurors requires reversal of conviction); Melson v. Dickson, 63 Ga. 682, 686 (Ga. 1879) ("an impartial jury is the cornerstone of the fairness of trial by jury.").
2. Moreover, because of the exceptional and irrevocable nature of the death penalty, the Supreme Court has held that every precaution is constitutionally required to ensure the fairness and reliability of decisions regarding both guilt and punishment in a capital trial. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 118, 102 S. Ct. 869, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1982) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (observing that "extraordinary measures" are required in a capital trial that are not required in other criminal cases). In Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28, 106 S. Ct. 1683, 90 L. Ed. 2d 27 (1986), the Court held that the trial court's refusal to allow certain voir dire questions required reversal as to the death sentence even though it did not require that the conviction be set aside.
3. From the "constitutional standard of fairness [which] requires that a state defendant have a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors," Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 95 S. Ct. 2031, 2036, 44 L. Ed. 2d 589 (1975), flows the conclusion that a full and fair voir dire process must be allowed in a criminal case. Indeed, defense counsel are "permitt[ed] a broad range of questions in examination of prospective jurors." Henderson v. State, 251 Ga. 398, 306 S.E.2d 645, 647 (1983) (quoting, Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 377, 219 S.E.2d 743 (Ga. 1975)).
4. The areas listed below are merely illustrative of those areas into which questioning by counsel must be allowed. See, e.g., Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28, 106 S. Ct. 1683, 90 L. Ed. 2d 27 (1986) (error to prevent questioning regarding possible racial bias); Legare v. State, 256 Ga. 302, 348 S.E.2d 881 (1986) (same); Chavez v. United States, 258 F.2d 816, 819 (10th Cir. 1958) (questioning concerning credibility of law enforcement officers); King v. Jones, 824 F.2d 324, 326 (4th Cir. 1987) (same); Henderson v. State, 306 S.E.2d at 648-649 (whether prospective jurors are related to former or current law enforcement employees, and stating that questions must be allowed if they relate to the "type or nature of the suit being tried"); Ridgway v. State, 174 Ga.App. 663, 330 S.E.2d 916 (1985) (whether juror has ever taken drugs); Craig v. State, 165 Ga.App. 156, 299 S.E.2d 745, 746 (1983) (questions relating to jurors' experiences with drugs); State v. Ball, 685 P.2d 1055 (Utah 1984) (same); Cowan v. State, 156 Ga.App. 650, 275 S.E.2d 665 (Ga. App. 1980) (questions relating to jurors' membership or participation in various organizations).
5. Attached to this motion is a proposed juror questionnaire that will elicit background information which may be relevant to challenges for cause as well as the intelligent and informed exercise of peremptory challenges. This questionnaire is similar or identical to one that has been used to good effect in several other capital trials. The questionnaire will provide the parties and the Court with responses that may alert them to possible relationships, associations or experiences which may be a source of bias or prejudice. It will also provide information which is necessary for the intelligent use of peremptory strikes.
6. The questionnaire will also save a great deal of time that can be devoted in voir dire to questioning about the extensive, sensational, and highly prejudicial publicity regarding this case in the media.
7. Mr. Client moves that the questionnaires may be served at the same time as the summons, and that jurors be directed to complete the questionnaires within five days and return them in postage-paid envelopes addressed to the clerk of the court. Alternatively the Court could require that jurors fill them out at the time that they report for jury duty. It will take moments, and substantially assist with the process of jury selection.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Client requests that this Court enter an order requiring:
a. that juror questionnaires be sent out with summonses to the venire persons;
b. that prospective jurors be provided with postage-paid envelopes addressed to the clerk of the court and directed to complete the forms and return them to the Court within five days;
c. that the clerk be directed to make copies of all questionnaires and provide them at the same time to counsel for the State and for Mr. Client; or,
d. that the jury questionnaires be filled out as the venire members report for jury duty; and,
e. such other relief as may be appropriate and warranted to protect his rights.
??

(..continued)