the court would describe, in a leading manner, the mechanics of the death penalty in New Jersey and elicit affirmative responses from the jurors about their ability to follow the law. In Biegenwald IV, supra, 126 N.J. at 36-43, 594 A.2d 172, this Court criticized the trial court for the leading nature of its questions, its failure to probe problematic responses, its frequent exclusion of defense counsel from the questioning process, and its failure to explain the definition of “murder” to obviously confused venirepersons. In Williams II, supra, 113 N.J. at 415-17, 550 A.2d 1172, this Court termed the trial court’s refusal to go into further depth about the effect of other crimes on jurors “serious error.” See also State v. Martini, 131 N.J. 176, 211-12, 619 A.2d 1208 (1993) (Martini I) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 875, 116 S.Ct. 203,
holding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow a question to prospective jurors on their feelings against recommending probation as punishment in a murder case holding trial judge was at the very limit of his discretion in refusing to remove prospective jurors for cause holding if kidnapping is charged in addition to capital murder trial court must inquire into effect of kidnapping charge on prospective jurors holding that a capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias holding double jeopardy did not prohibit capital prosecution of defendant who pled guilty to seconddegree murder and agreed to testify against codefendants but violated plea agreement by refusing to testify at retrial and state properly sought new indictment for capital murder resulting in death sentence imposed at trial for firstdegree murder