A small change in DP rules.

1) From now if a DP case results in a conviction and it is subsequently proven that the prosecutors withheld evidence, tampered with evidence, coerced witnesses, or in any way violated their obligations, the punishment imposed on the person found guilty shall be imposed on the prosecutor and his colleagues.

2) no juror shall be excluded from a DP case because of his or her opposition to the death penalty.

I think that will even things out on the side of actual justice, rather than the blood vengence that we now obtain.

They are only excluded if they could never give a death sentence if that was determined to be the proper sentence according to statute. If you are against the death penalty, but could follow the law, then you can be on the jury.

That's rational, but wouldnt they be the first on the list prosecutors would eliminate during jury selection?

He can't use the unlimited strike to wittle away anyone who has qualms about the death penalty.

"A death-qualified jury is a jury in a criminal law case involving the death penalty which excludes jurors opposed to capital punishment. Creating a death-qualified jury requires striking jurors during voir dire who express opposition to the death penalty and will not set aside their personal, moral, or emotional objections. Death-qualifying a jury is believed to create a fair and impartial jury which will fairly consider both death and life in prison.

Expressing opposition to the death penalty does not automatically disqualify a juror. A party may attempt to rehabilitate the juror by asking questions about whether they would consider the death penalty. On the other hand, a juror stating that they favor the death penalty may also be excused. To rehabilitate this juror, the juror must state that they are willing to consider life in prison.

The constitutionality of a death-qualified jury has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968), and Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986). The use, however, of a death-qualified jury is not constitutionally mandated.
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death-qualified_jury

My reading of that is that opposition causes exclusion but the defense can attempt rehabilitation. I have never heard of a juror being excluded for supporting the death penalty. I would be interested if this has ever happened.

It is all bullshit. Death qualified juries are hugely slanted in favor of conviction.

off, like Wikipedia often is. It says that a party "may" try to determine whether the juror can apply the death sentence when the voice concerns about it. They MUST determine if the juror can impose the death sentence and put aside their own beliefs. That is specifically what Witherspoon is about. They excluded dozens of veniremen based on suggestions that they may have a "religious scruples or conscientious objections" to the death penalty. This was ruled unconstitutional because they never determined if the juror could impose the death sentence. McCree affirmed this and went further, stating that this did not bias the jury.

I think Court got that part wrong, but they affirmed Witherspoon. The whole problem with death qualified juries is that the process immediately slants the jury towards guilt. Before they even have a trial, they spend all this time talking about whether the venire could give death or life in prison. By the time the jury is selected, they have already been drilled about sentencing before even finding guilt.

Technically, according to McCree, a juror who would always impose the death sentence for murder (without weighing mitigating circumstances) may also be excused.

I wonder how many murderers got convicted if the accuser took his life in his own hands by accusing.