Ortiz v. State, 869 A.2d 285 (2005)

Juan Ortiz was convicted of first degree murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and arson in the second degree. The jury voted eleven to one to sentence Ortiz to death. This article will primarily review the issue that involves the trial judge’s decision to deny Ortiz the supplemental voir dire questionnaire.

After his conviction, Ortiz appealed and brought up six issues. The issues primarily pertain to questions issues jury questions and certain evidence that was admitted during the trial. For example the victim’s wounds were repeatedly shown to inflame the passions of the jury and because evidence of his past bad acts were discussed during rebuttal in his penalty hearing.

HOLDING

The court affirmed the conviction and found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it made certain evidentiary rulings. This includes the trial court’s denial of the supplemental voir dire questionnaire.

SUPPLEMENTAL VOIR DIRE QUESTIONNAIRE

A forty question voir dire questionnaire was distributed to jurors prior to the trial, the questions were similar to one that had been used in a federal death penalty case. Ortiz asked the court to include twenty-four other questions in a supplemental voir dire questionnaire.

As part of its order, the trial court judge reasoned that “some of the questions in this form are none of the Court’s business.” Some of the questions include: “Do you have an active role in your church?” “Have you ever studied for the ministry, priesthood or any other religious position?” What newspapers and magazines do you normally read?” Please list your hobbies and spare time activities;” “Have you ever had a bumper sticker on your car?”

While the Constitution outlines an impartial trial by jury, it does not outline what a voir dire requires. In Aldridge, the Supreme Court writes that voir dire is within the broad discretion of the trial judge. The outward limits of discretion are drawn at racial or ethnic bias. The court reasons that none of the questions in the proposed supplemental questionnaire were directly related to bias or to prejudice.

SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE

DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Please check the levels of education completed:

Grade School _ Junior High _ High School _ Vocational/Trade School J_ College _ Professional Schools _ Graduate School___

2. If a graduate of a college or vocational school, what was your major area of study or training? __

3. Have you ever been self-employed? Yes._. No ___

If yes, please describe when and what you did while self-employed: _

4. List significant employment within the past 10 years. Give approximate dates. _

5. Marital Status: _Never Married __Married _Divorced Number of Years___ _Separated .Widowed

6. Number of Children (if any): _ Gii’ls_Boys

Ages: _

7. Please list for each child 18 years or older:

Place of City of Age Occupation Employment Residence

8.Please list organization to which you or your spouse belong or in which either of you participate, either now or in the recent past. For example, religious, political, social, fraternal, service, professional, business, sporting, recreational organizations, and union membership.

9.Any offices held in above organizations:

10. If you are affiliated with a church, temple, synagogue or other religious organization, please give its name and location: _

11. Do you have an active role in your church? Yes_No_

If yes, please explain:

12. Have you ever studied for the ministry, priesthood or any other religious position? Yes_No_

If so, please explain: _

13. Have you or your spouse ever participated in, or contributed money to, any group concerned with crime prevention or victims’ rights (such as Crime Stoppers, Neighborhood Watch Programs, Shelters or Crisis Centers? Yes_ No____

If so, please describe:

14.What newspapers and magazines do you usually read?

15.List any National or Local News programs you frequently watch?

16. If applicable, do you have one or more favorite radio stations? Yes _No_

If so, which ones? _

17. Do you frequently listen to any radio talk shows? Yes_No_

If so, which ones? _

18. Name three favorite television programs that you regularly watch?

19.Please list the types of books or movies you most enjoy:

*31820.Please list your hobbies or spare time activities:

21. Have you ever owned any kind of firearm? Yes_No_

If so, what types of firearm(s) have you owned, and for what purposes do you (did you) own them? ___

22. Have you ever belonged to the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America or any other organization which is concerned with protecting the right to own weapons? Yes_No_

If so, please describe the extent of your participation in the organization: ___

23. Have you ever had bumper stickers on your car? Yes _ No _

If so, what did the bumper sticker(s) say: –

24. Would you describe yourself politically? Pick the spot on the scale which seems correct:

1 2 3 4 5 6 Extremely liberal Extremely conservative

(check if applicable)

_No overall classification fits in my case.

TAKEAWAY

This case provides useful information as it pertains to voir dire, it also provides insight into the scope of the trial court’s discretion as it pertains to voir dire. While there are constitutional boundaries, namely ethnicity, race, or sex in jury selection, the trial judge’s discretion will generally be upheld.

Jake Leahy

Jake A. Leahy

Attorney

Jake A. Leahy is a tax attorney at Airdo Werwas who counsels nonprofits, local governments, and businesses in tax, regulatory, and commercial matters.

He is a former Assistant Illinois Attorney General in the Revenue Litigation Bureau, where he handled…

Jake A. Leahy

Attorney

Jake A. Leahy is a tax attorney at Airdo Werwas who counsels nonprofits, local governments, and businesses in tax, regulatory, and commercial matters.

He is a former Assistant Illinois Attorney General in the Revenue Litigation Bureau, where he handled estate tax litigation, collections audits, and matters involving various state agencies. He previously served as a Judicial Law Clerk in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Tax & Miscellaneous Remedies Section, working on administrative review actions, commercial disputes, and tax-related litigation.

Jake previously served on the Board of Education for Bannockburn School District 106 from 2017 to 2023, including as Vice President from 2020 to 2023. His experience in local government informs his work with public-sector clients, boards, and nonprofit organizations.

Jake is active in professional and bar organizations. He serves as an Assembly Member of the Illinois State Bar Association, Chair of the Chicago Bar Association’s State & Local Tax Committee and Young Lawyers Section Federal Tax Committee, and a member of the Editorial Board of the DuPage County Bar Association. He was recognized by the Illinois State Bar Association with its Law Student Public Service Award during law school, and by the Internal Revenue Service for his work with the Low-Income Tax Clinic at Holy Name Cathedral.

Jake earned his LL.M. in Taxation from Georgetown University Law Center, his J.D. from the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, and his B.A. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is admitted to practice in Illinois, the U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Outside of practice, Jake has completed three marathons, is a regular at Wrigley Field, and appreciates Chicago architecture.

Education

    • Georgetown University Law Center, LL.M. in Taxation, 2025

    • University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, J.D., 2023

    • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, B.A. Political Science: Public Policy & Democratic Institutions, 2019

Admitted to Practice

    • Northern District of Illinois, 2025

    • U.S. Tax Court, 2024

    • Illinois, 2023

Associations

    • Illinois State Bar Association

    • Chicago Bar Association

    • American Bar Association, Tax Section

    • DuPage County Bar Association

    • Celtic Law Association