Whether a criminal defendant is deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to an impartial jury when a jury member gives dishonest and incomplete answers during voir dire

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In this capital case, Petitioner Westley Devone Harris’ selected jury consisted of jury persons who, by failing to disclose material details and by providing incomplete answers on the jury questionnaire and during voir dire, deprived Mr. Harris of his right to a fair and impartial jury. Specifically, Jurors Reginald Greene and Retha Johnson each gave incomplete and dishonest answers during voir dire. Juror Greene dishonestly failed to disclose during voir dire that he had a close personal relationship with one of the victims, such that he served as a pallbearer at that victim’s funeral. Juror Johnson failed to disclose that she had an eyewitness account of Mr. Harris’ movements on the morning after the murders— movements which were the subject of the State’s testimony at crucial points of the trial—despite having been explicitly asked if she had any knowledge of the case. The information withheld by both jurors undeniably created a bias in their opinions of the testimony and evidence presented during Mr. Harris’ trial, and thus impacted the jury’s verdict against Mr. Harris. In his Alabama Rule 32 Petition for postconviction relief, Mr. Harris claimed that such juror misconduct deprived him of his right to a fair and impartial jury. The Circuit Court of Crenshaw County summarily denied Mr. Harris’ Rule 32 Petition without a hearing. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed that denial. ii The two questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether a criminal defendant is deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to an impartial jury when a jury member gives dishonest and incomplete answers during voir dire regarding his or her knowledge and familiarity with the defendant and the case. 2. Whether a criminal defendant is deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to an impartial jury when a jury member has a personal firsthand eyewitness account of the defendant’s whereabouts during a time-period relevant to the state’s case, thereby considering extraneous evidence during guilt and penalty phase deliberations.