The evidence showed that Robinson later returned to his home with a baby named Tiffany and gave the child to his younger brother in furtherance of what turned out to be his adoption ruse. The First Circuit concluded that [w]e cannot assume, as the district court apparently did, that individual voir dire of the jurors and a curative instruction would not have eradicated the risk of prejudice in this case. 519 F.3d at 88; see Cross v. To frame the issue properly, it is important to understand Judge Anderson's rulings pertaining to the scope of voir dire and the events giving rise to them. [Citation omitted. First, since Morgan, the majority of federal appellate courts have rejected the notion that the Constitution mandates case-specific questioning during voir dire in capital proceedings. at 451; State v. Bell, 145 Ohio Misc.2d 55, 67, 34, 882 N.E.2d 502 (2008), aff'd 2009 WL 1395857, at *5 31 (Ohio App.2009) (unpublished opinion); Commonwealth v. Koch, Pa. She became so upset that the family arranged special contact visits, with the approval of sheriffs department personnel, while Robinson was in jail awaiting trial. 213439(a)(6), that the murders of Trouten and Lewicka were each part of a common scheme or course of conduct that also included the intentional, premeditated murders of Beverly J. Bonner, Sheila Faith, Debbie Faith, and Lisa Stasi. In a highly complex, capital trial that continued for weeks on end, we have detected only three errors. Robinson argues the prosecutor lacked a good-faith basis to assert as fact that defense counsel advised Cunningham not to produce a written report. Robinson challenges three instances where the prosecutor allegedly advanced an argument unsupported by the evidence. The court may simply purge the panel by discharging those individuals not qualified.). State v. Scott, 286 Kan. at 65 (quoting Harris, 284 Kan. 560, Syl. Judge Anderson noted that he had dismissed jurors who provided similar responses after construing their testimony in the former category. Even if one is seduced by the majority's interpretation of the capital murder statute, I contend that my present-tense interpretation is certainly a reasonable reading of the statute. At the start of closing argument, prosecutor Morrison characterized Robinson's acts as sinister and provided examples of his conduct warranting the title. Juror 149 also confirmed that, having been informed of the process, he would set aside his opinions and serve impartially. Reason to Protect Jurors from Identification. See 18 U.S.C. Defense counsel's hypothetical did not include any competing description of mitigating circumstances. 38.23 (West 2005) (No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case.). Lenexa Police Detective Michael Bussell drove by Robinson's residence 50 to 60 times from March to June 2000, exploring the location, developing strategies for collecting Robinson's trash, and coordinating trash pulls on collection days. Trouten's journal, recovered during the search of Robinson's Olathe storage unit, included an entry dated February 21 where Trouten wrote: Found out this morning that we will be leaving for the trip next Monday. Robinson began his term at KDOC in maximum security, but he was reduced to medium security within several months. Defense counsel implicitly acknowledged the unreliability of these experts' preliminary findings during posttrial argument, explaining the defense did not call Nerad or Lewis as witnesses because a half-baked mitigation defense would have been worse than no defense at all. Under initial questioning by Morrison, she said that the clerk in her office, Alberta, had received a phone call from John about the stray Pekinese. 222502 and 222503. 5. United States v. Sharp, 400 Fed. Robinson relies on United States v. RamirezEncarnacion, 291 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir.2002), in support of the proposition that boilerplate language describing the effectiveness of search warrants is legally insufficient. She stayed with him after his theft conviction in Missouri and when he went back to prison after his probation was revoked. One of the staff members noted that Robinson was particularly skilled in the field of computer technology and that prison officials had Robinson troubleshoot computer problems and develop software programs used by the prison. Independently, Robinson argues Glines' testimony introduced collateral facts that were irrelevant under K.S.A. The resolution of these competing statutory interpretations lies within the history of the pertinent statutes. The jury consisted of 11 members who entered the box without preconceived opinions of the case, and all confirmed their ability to set aside personal views and decide the case on the evidence at trial. Nancy testified that the prospect of Robinson's execution has had a devastating impact on their entire family. I would be in that barrel.. Of Evidence, and the back read John E. Robinson Trial 2002., Judge Anderson found that none of the jurors were exposed to the publicity stunt or T-shirts because of safeguards the court had taken, including bringing jurors into the courthouse through a secluded entry away from the incident. We disagree with Robinson. Both appeared to be in good condition. However, Judge Anderson provided the following supplemental instruction: What the Bible says about the appropriateness of a death penalty in a particular case is not a legitimate concern of a penalty phase jury. More specifically, the [statute] must convey sufficient definite warning and fair notice as to the prohibited conduct in light of common understanding and practice. Steffes, 284 Kan. at 389 (citing [City of Wichita v.] Hackett, 275 Kan. [848,] 85354[, 69 P.3d 621 (2003) ] ). It is hardly necessary to say that the right to counsel being conceded, a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S.Ct. In analyzing the penalty phase proceedings, we presumed without holding that Juror 147's use of the Bible constituted juror misconduct.