Today, TruTV is covering the beginning of the trial of Alvaro Castillo for murdering his father in 2006 and then opening fire in the high school from which he graduated a year earlier. According to Beth Karas the jury is expected to be seated this morning, and opening statements could come later today.

Apparently, this is not a capital case. The jurors won’t need to be “death qualified” (a chilling term). But jurors are being asked to reveal their beliefs concerning “the insanity defense” and “the abuse excuse” (Alan Dershowitz’s very apt characterization of the Twinkie defense and related excuses for committing murder).

Presumably jurors who admit they don’t believe in the insanity defense will be excused. As a matter of justice, this makes perfect sense. The law requires that a defendant not only be competent to assist in his own defense (see my post “Child Court v  Pet Court”) but also that he must have understood the difference between right and wrong when he committed the offense. Intent to do wrong is a critical component of guilt.

I can’t say the same thing for “death-qualified” jurors, though. What is the logic? I don’t believe in the death penalty. So, even though I would vote during the penalty phase of a trial against capital punishment, the defendant – presumed innocent until proved guilty – is not entitled to have me sit in judgment of him during the guilt phase. And I, a citizen just like those who hold the opposite opinion, am not permitted to serve on a jury in a capital case. Why shouldn’t I have the right to keep this opinion to myself during voir dire? My belief would not hinder me from fairly judging the evidence of guilt.

By definition IMHO a juror who is death-qualified is inclined to assume the defendant guilty until proven innocent. Why isn’t it a violation of the defendant’s rights to be tried by a jury of people who don’t understand that the government can make mistakes and convict the wrong person?