Rigged: On The Partiality Of The (a) Death Qualified Jury (or Why Scott Eizember Shouldn’t Be Executed By Oklahoma In January)

October 22, 2022

Rigged: On the Partiality of the (a) Death Qualified Jury (or why Scott Eizember shouldn’t be executed by Oklahoma in January)

Here in the United States, juries that decide death penalty cases are required to be free of attitudes that would, “prevent or substantially impair their ability to decide a sentence fairly.” This means that a jury must be prepared to consider a death sentence…also known as a death qualified jury (…which should mean that they are also prepared to consider a life sentence…ie a life qualified jury). The standard was set in the United States Supreme Court decision, Wainwright v. Witt, in 1985. Since then, death penalty juries are regularly scrutinized for their adherence to such a standard. Prior to the death penalty trial of Scott Eizember, a juror known as D.B. had the following answers/replies on their juror questionnaire/interactions with Eizember’s attorney:

D.B.

Have you ever formed an opinion either in favor or against the death penalty? If so, explain.

Yes X No _

I firmly believe if you take a life you should lose yours.

What are your feelings about the death penalty? Please explain:

I have no reservations about seeing someone put to death so long as it has been proven the person is guilty, especially if they have taken the lives of others.

What purpose do you think the death penalty serves in our society?

Keeps taxpayers from having to support a criminal for the remainder of their life

Do you think the death penalty in Oklahoma is used too often or too seldom?

Definitely not too often.

Check the “one” statement which “best” summarizes your general views about capital punishment (the death Penalty):

_1. I am opposed to capital punishment under any circumstances.

_2. I am opposed to capital punishment except, in a few cases where it may be appropriate.

_3. I am neither generally opposed, nor generally in favor of capital punishment.

_4. I am in favor of capital punishment, except in a few cases where it may not be appropriate.

X 5. I am strongly in favor of capital punishment as an appropriate penalty.

If you were Mr. Eizember or the State of Oklahoma would you want yourself as a juror in this case?

Yes (_) No (X )

Because if I feel guilt has been proven, I would not hesitate to impose the death penalty.

These responses, Mr. Eizember argues, show that D.B. couldn’t fairly consider all three sentencing options for first-degree murder (death, life without parole, and life with the possibility of parole) and had to be excluded.

Besides, even if these answers don’t suffice to show that much, Mr. Eizember claims that D.B.’s colloquy with his lawyer during voir dire certainly does. During that exchange, counsel asked D.B. whether she would be able to consider a sentence of life without parole. “If the death penalty was not an option, yes,” she replied. Asked to elaborate, she reasoned: “If they’re in prison for the remainder of their life without a possibility of parole why not the death penalty?” The exchange continued:

[Q]: All right, so are you, are you telling me then that if you had a situation where it was laid out on the table, life, life without parole or death, then you would automatically consider one of those?

[A]: Automatically consider one of—

[Q]: One of those punishments over the others?

[A]: Probably.

[Q]: And—

[A]: Yes.

[Q]: And that would be death?

[A]: Yes.

After counsel clarified the posture under which D.B. might have to make such a decision—only if and after the jury found the defendant guilty of intentional murder—he again asked whether she “would automatically say it should be the death penalty.” D.B. responded that she “would have to look at all three but just off the cuff, it would probably be death,” explaining too that she “would have to try hard” to endorse life without parole.

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1713181.html

While there is no doubt that Scott Eizember is guilty of a variety of crimes (general details of which are easily found online), death sentences are supposed to be decided by juries with a substantial degree of impartiality. Regarding the death penalty, do you think there is anything impartial about the views held above? D.B. unquestionably felt that the sentence was death before the trial even started. How is this remotely fair?

You might think that Scott Eizember is a monster that deserves to die. You’re entitled to have such an opinion. But here in these United States, we are governed by law and not opinion. The law states that Eizember is entitled to impartiality from a jury of his peers. The interactions with D.B. make it plain that he didn’t receive anything close to such impartiality.

Scott Eizember is scheduled to be executed on January 12, 2023. I guess D.B. will get what D.B. wanted from the very beginning…death. Such partiality speaks to the wider injustice of the death penalty…it’s application most often is based on the prejudiced thoughts/emotions of a few (see D.B.’s responses above).