a potential juror in a death penalty case cannot be stricken solely because...

a potential juror in a death penalty case cannot be stricken solely because she expressed opposition to capital punishment, but instead must be asked "follow-up questions" about her "willingness and ability to follow the law," the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
In its 25-page unpublished opinion in Stevens v. Horn, a unanimous 3-judge panel concluded that Andre Stevens "was denied his constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury" because a Beaver County judge had removed a juror "on the sole basis of her statement that she opposed capital punishment."
Stevens was convicted in 1993 for killing his estranged wife, Brenda Jo Stevens, and Michael Love, after he saw them dancing in a bar.
In a nonjury trial, Stevens admitted to the shootings, but claimed he suffered from diminished mental capacity. After he was convicted by the judge, a jury was empanelled to decide his sentence, and it voted to impose death.
The court upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab of the Western District of Pennsylvania that granted Stevens a new trial of the penalty phase due to a flaw in the jury-selection process.