Does the defendant have a basis for appeal that Smith was on the jury and was predisposed to sentence him to death?

Question

During jury selection in a capital case the following exchange between defense counsel and the potential venire person, Mr. Smith, took place:
Attorney: Would you be able to give serious consideration to a sentence or life without parole?
Smith: Well, if there's no evidence otherwise, I probably--I mean, I believe in capital punishment, but that's not, I have to be really convinced. That's what I'm saying.
Attorney: Are you saying you really have to be convinced by the State, or you really have to be convinced by me?
Smith: I would have to be convinced that the person was not deserving of capital punishment.
Attorney: Would you require me to put on evidence to persuade you that life imprisonment would be appropriate in this case before you would give serious consideration to a life sentence?
Smith: I believe so.
Attorney: And you understand that the burden of proof on the state?
Smith: Yes.
Attorney: But you would nonetheless require us to put on, to convince you otherwise?
Smith: Right
Attorney: Against the death sentence
Smith: Right
The defense did not ask the judge to remove Mr. Smith for cause on the basis that Smith could not follow the law placing the burden of proof on the prosecution. Smith remained on the jury and the defendant was sentenced to death.
What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

ANSWER: Answers may vary: This question tests the students' cumulative knowledge in the course that the prosecution always retains the burden of proof to prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defendant never has an affirmative duty to present any evidence or a defense, except in the limited circumstances raising affirmative defenses. The question also asks students to recognize the difficulty in challenging jurors for cause based on their responses on voir dire.