Fill and Sign the Motion to Invoke the Rule Prior to Voir Dire and to Enjoin Form

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI STATE OF MISSISSIPPI VS. CAUSE NUMBER DEFENDANT MOTION TO INVOKE THE RULE PRIOR TO VOIR DIRE AND TO ENJOIN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FROM ADVISING WITNESSES OF PREVIOUS TESTIMONY COMES NOW, , by counsel, and moves this Court pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 3, §§ 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 & 32 of the Mississippi Constitution to invoke the rule of witness sequestration prior to voir dire and to enjoin the prosecuti ng attorney from advising witnesses of either their own or other witnesses' previous testimony. In support of his/her motion, states as follows: 1. It is imperative that witnesses not discuss the case with other people so that t hey can "get the story straight." Such misconduct only serves to reduce the reliability of the fact-finding process, and violate the purpose of the rule--which is to preclude the tainting of witnesses' testimony by the influence of investigators or other witnesses. See Miss. R. Ev. § 615; Miss. Unif. Crim. Ct. R. § 5.09. As the Supreme Court held in Douglas v. State, 525 So.2d 1312 (Miss. 1988): We agree with [Appellant's] contention that it does no good to sequester witnesses if some one is going to relate testimony to them, anyway. On the other hand, we recognize that attorneys need to consult with their witnesses in order to prepare them to testify. Preparing them, howe ver, does not mean relating other witnesses' testimony. We admonish trial judges to be aware of the possibility that the sequestration rule may be circumvented in the guise of attorneys "prepping" their witnesses. Id. at 1319 (emphasis supplied; citation omitted). Since this is to be a capital prosecution, even more exacting standards must be met to assure that it is fair. "The fundamental re spect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment gives rise to a special '"need for reliability in the determination that deat h is the appropriate punishment"' in any capital case." Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 584, 108 S. Ct. 1981, 100 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1988) (quoting, Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 363-64, 97 S. Ct. 1197, 51 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1977) (quoting, Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 305, 96 S. Ct. 2978, 49 L. Ed. 2d 944 (1976) (White, J., concurring))). 2. Because the attorneys outline what they expect the evidence to show during the voir dire process, it is important that the rule be invoked prior to voir dire, to avoid the witnesses being tainted. WHEREFORE, moves that his/her motion be granted. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Attorney for Defendant CERTIFICATE I, , do hereby certify that I have on this day delivered, by hand, a true and correct c opy of the foregoing Motion of Defendant to This day of . _______________________________