he or she had racial prejudices against black people or would credit a white person’s testimony over that of a black person. Second, Appellant argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to rehabilitate jurors who showed they were hesitant to impose the death penalty when the prosecutor was “death qualifying” them. Appellant asserts that the prosecutor challenged for cause eleven jurors who initially stated some form of opposition to the death penalty, and trial counsel failed to object or attempt to elicit more detailed information about whether the particular jurors were so predisposed that their personal beliefs would substantially impair their ability to judge the sentencing proceeding fairly. See Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 522, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968) (<HOLDING>). The decision to disqualify a juror is within
holding prospective jurors may not be excused from jury service in a capital case because based on religious beliefs they voice general objections to the death penalty holding that trial court is not required to poll the jurors regarding possible acquittal on death penalty holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty holding that defendant may be subject to death penalty on resentencing holding that potential jurors may not be excluded merely because they voice general moral or philosophical reservations about the death penalty