Scott v. State, 4D01-4199.
| Decision Date | 18 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D01-4199.,4D01-4199. |
| Citation | 825 So.2d 1067 |
| Parties | Kevin SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Maria J. Patullo, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Kevin Scott was convicted of burglary of a structure and possession of drug paraphernalia after police found him stepping off a church's porch with a shopping bag containing cleaning supplies, a mop, and a candy dish. Although Scott raises a number of issues on appeal, we write to address only one—his claim that the trial court erred in denying his for—cause challenge to a juror. We find merit in this claim and reverse.
During jury selection, defense counsel addressed the venire regarding the credibility of testifying police officers. On this subject, juror Ockerman initially made the following remarks:
D Cnsl: And what do you think about police officers testifying? Do you think they are more credible because they are police officers? Juror: Somewhat, I do. D Cnsl: And do you think that's solely because they're police officers or do you think it's based on their training or— Juror: I would say I think it's more or less they choose that sort of duty because you know, they—they're fighting for everyone, they're working for the public. D Cnsl: Okay. So do you think that police officers are more credible solely because they are police officers? Juror: Uh, I know there is bad police officers I know there is good ones, but I can't say that just because I see them up there I'm not gonna kinda lean towards their way because there is—I think you said three of them and if they all have the same story I'm not sure if I could differentiate.
Defense counsel sought to exercise a for-cause challenge to Ockerman, citing her expressed tendency to believe a police officer simply because he or she was an officer. The prosecutor argued that this was not what she had said, so the judge brought Ockerman back into the courtroom for additional questioning. Ockerman further explained:
Juror: ... Uh, I just, you know, police officers they choose that to be their— their job, that's their civic duty. I you know, I know there is bad ones. But I can't really imagine why they would get up on the stand lie—and lie.
Court: All right. Would you—if police officers come in and testify, would you uh, listen to their testimony, observe their demeanor and make up your own mind after you hear them and see them, as to what weight or how much credibility you want to give them, or would you— Juror: Just because they're police officers, I'm not going to say what they say is true. I would listen to what they say. . . . . Juror: I would listen to what they have to say. I won't say just right now because they are police officers whatever they say up there is going to be true. Is that what you're getting at? . . . . Court: That's—you're better at asking it than I am. Yes ma'am. In other words you'll be asked to judge credibility of witnesses, maybe police officers, maybe not police officers. Juror: Right. Court: I'll give you—if a jury—or you are selected on the jury, you'll be given some criteria that I'm going to give you to determine a person's credibility. . . . . Court: ... Uh, will you—in other words, will you follow the Court's instructions to—in order to determine a witness' credibility, even—including police officers, or would you tend to believe a police officer simply because they are an officer? I think you answered my question, but I just want to make sure. Juror: Okay. Are you asking me if I will go along with what—how you tell me to judge the law and then are you also asking me if I will say I believe it just because he's a police officer? Is that what you're getting at? Court: Yes ma'am. Juror: Okay. Of course I'll do whatever you tell me to, because my dad tells me what a great judge you are. And then no, I'm not going to just say yes, it's right just because they are a police officer. Court: Okay. Juror: I just—it's just kind of hard not to, you know, give them just a tiny bit more respect because they do protect the people. And I don't know if that really is what— Court: Well, I'm not asking you to not respect 'em or disrespect 'em. Juror: Right. Court: I'm just—what I'm asking is will you make up your own mind as to whether they're credible or not based on the testimony they give here in the courtroom— Juror: Yes.
Both defense counsel and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vega v. State
...; Reid v. State, 972 So.2d 298, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ; Slater v. State, 910 So.2d 347, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ; Scott v. State, 825 So.2d 1067, 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In Juede, we noted that while a juror may be rehabilitated, " ‘[a] juror's subsequent statements that he or she could......
-
Disla v. Blanco
...doubts about impartiality, a reviewing court must look at the entirety of the juror's voir dire.” Id. (citing Scott v. State, 825 So.2d 1067, 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). “If the juror declares and the court determines that the juror ‘can render an impartial verdict according to the evidence,......
-
Juede v. State, 4D01-772.
...is insufficient to overcome the reasonable doubts as to his partiality created by his previous statements. See also Scott v. State, 825 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(reversing conviction where reasonable doubt existed as to juror's ability to be impartial after juror indicated she would fi......
-
Lewis v. State, 4D05-1958.
...all reasonable doubts about impartiality, a reviewing court must look at the entirety of the juror's voir dire. Scott v. State, 825 So.2d 1067, 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). "Efforts at rehabilitating a prospective juror should always be considered in light of what the juror had freely said bef......