The right words : Attorneys question potential jurors
Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008
BENTONVILLE - Context and syntax are not on trial. Serafin Sandoval-Vega and Manuel Camacho are on trial. But verbal word play, the importance of a single word, is beginning to take on new meaning.
It was an oral maneuvering of sorts, as the attorneys renewed their efforts on the second day of jury selection to draw out the qualities of each prospective juror to determine if he or she was suited to decide two young men's fates.
Tuesday's proceedings seemed more about the questions being asked. The attorneys, in pairs, often discussed the next line of queries as they worked their way through the first four candidates.
By Wednesday, those questions seemed solidified, well thought out, but attorneys paid more attention to single words, the difference between a good question and a bad one.
There was coaxing of prospective jurors with similar questions to see if the answers changed, to see if the wording was effectively communicating the question so that a qualified juror was not dismissed because he or she did not understand the question the way the attorney did.
Prosecuting Attorney Van Stone was the first to fine-tune his language while discussing one woman's qualms about capital punishment.
"Your problems with the death penalty - are they heightened because of the age of these men ? "Stone asked a woman from Siloam Springs. "I shouldn't say problems. Your convictions about the death penalty - are they heightened because of the age of these men ?"
Louis Lim, an attorney for Sandoval-Vega, found opposition from Stone over the definition of the word "presumption."
"Did you know the law presumes life (over the death penalty )? "Lim asked the woman from Siloam Springs. Stone objected, saying the law only allows for two punishments and does not prefer one over the other.
"My presumption is that you start off with life (in prison ), and unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no death sentence," Lim said.
Circuit Judge Tom Keith said he had never heard of a jury instructed that there is a presumption of life, and upheld Stone's objection. Lim tried different language.
A little while later, Lim had a run-in with Keith over a repeated line of questioning Lim said was aimed at determining if a Bentonville woman was expressing her personal limitations or simply a misunderstanding of what was being asked of her.
He was asking about her opinion, the same opinion Keith had discussed with her minutes earlier, when Keith interrupted.
"She's already answered three times," Keith said. "It doesn't have to be four or five. You're quibbling here."
"I don't think I'm quibbling," Lim said.
"You are quibbling, and you need to move on," Keith said.
"It's just …"
"You need to move on," Keith said, ending the discussion.
A similar discussion was held over Camacho's attorney Tim Bucker's questioning of a woman over her views about gangs.
Attorney Joel Huggins, representing Sandoval-Vega, took a unique tact by asking candidates to promise him that they would take prosecutors to task if they did not do their job and to promise him that the prospective jurors would weigh factors such as age and use of alcohol when considering penalties. Huggins also threw in a new loophole Wednesday afternoon by comparing similar murder charges.
"The same conduct can get you first-degree murder or capital murder," he told one retired woman. "Do you think that's fair ?"
Stone objected to the question, calling it irrelevant, but Keith upheld the inquiry.
Stone, meanwhile, largely relied on legal terminology, especially when discussing the death penalty and the process of choosing it. The impact was similar to that of a doctor discussing a diagnosis using medical jargon, as those who were opposed to the death penalty were now saying they could consider it as a matter of law.
The defense attorneys used a different tactic to achieve a similar result. Lim and attorney Kent McLemore, representing Manuel Camacho, repeatedly told jurors that no one had the right to challenge their decision to choose life or death, a choice the attorneys equated to a religious or personal moral belief.
The result, however, seemed counterproductive. Where two out of four possible jurors were approved Tuesday, none of the seven candidates the attorneys interviewed Wednesday were added to that list.
Near the end of the day, McLemore again moved for a separate trial for his client. Sandoval-Vega's defense team, he said, was trying to argue that their client was under duress because of pressure from Camacho, whom McLemore represents. McLemore said the other defense team's tactic is at odds with his own.
Keith thought briefly before denying the motion without explanation.
But the panel of attorneys, weary from the day's work, did not consider the effort wasted.
"Some people would say we worked all day and didn't accomplish anything," Huggins said. "I would disagree. I think we have accomplished something. We talked to a lot of jurors and made some tough decisions to ensure a fair trial."
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
