Defendant’s Brief in Support of Motion for Additional Time to Conduct Voir Dire

DEFENDANT’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME

TO CONDUCT VOIR DIRE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, the Defendant, John Edward Jones, by and through his attorney of record, and submits this, his Brief in Support of Motion for Additional Time to Conduct Voir Dire; and in support thereof would show the Honorable Court the following:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Defendant was indicted in the instant case on February 24, 2006 for the offense of murder. The indictment also alleges for enhancement purposes that the Defendant has been previously convicted of the offense of indecency with a child. The Defendant faces a punishment range of from not less than 15 or more than 99 years or life if convicted in this case.

This case will have to be tried in front of a jury. The case is currently set for trial on May 8, 2006. The trial court during pretrial hearings has made it known that there will be a time limit of one hour per side for voir dire purposes.

The Defendant will require more time for voir dire. The trial of this case will involve many complex legal issues. Each of these complex legal issues will require extensive questioning of the venire to discover their views on the issue. Counsel for Defendant will be required to ask many follow-up questions of individual veniremen as to each of these issues.

Counsel will ask direct, specific questions of the venire and individual veniremen. Counsel will not ask global, irrelevant or non-specific questions.

AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT

The Defendant recognizes that the control of voir dire examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Rios v. State, 122 S.W.3d 194(Tex.Cr.App. 2003). The Defendant recognizes that the trial judge can impose reasonable limits on the time to conduct voir dire. Caldwell v. State, 818 S.W.2d 790 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991). However, it must be pointed out that each case is different and that some cases may involve more issues, more complex issues or more sensitive issues than the average case. Ganther v. State, 848 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd).

Counsel for Defendant does not seek to needlessly prolong the voir dire, only seeks to ask proper questions of the venire and believes that certain questions will have to be asked of individual members of the venire. See Ratliff v. State, 690 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985); Dhillon v. State, 138 S.W.3d 583 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). As best as possible...