Judge Nicholas Garaufis
Wilson committed certain murders when he was 20 years old. The court is conducting voir dire to select a jury to decide if Wilson will be sentenced to death or life in prison without release. The court struck Juror #1763. Based on her voir dire questioningand noting that she was not confused about the difference between using childhood experience to excuse a crime as opposed to mitigate against a death sentencethe court was left with the firm impression that Juror #1763 believes that once one becomes an adult, childhood experiences are irrelevant to a sentencing determination. However, the court denied Wilson’s motion to strike Juror #1775. He misinterpreted Juror #1775′s response to a voir dire question as depicting a "world view" incompatible with meaningful consideration of background mitigation evidence. Contrary to Wilson’s assertion, the court observed that Juror #1775′s last statement in response to voir dire questioning indicated that an underprivileged upbringing should be a sentencing consideration. Further, Juror #1775 had repeatedly, confidently and unambiguously stated that he could meaningfully and properly consider all forms of mitigation evidence, including childhood experiences.
