Cited by

and that such intent or knowledge preceded the killing by a length of time permitting reflection.” ¶ 66, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also A.R.S.

¶8 A defendant has a due process right “to have the trial presided over by a judge who is completely impartial and free of bias or prejudice.” ¶ 35

–28, ¶¶ 30–31, –11 (2006).

“Evidentiary rulings that implicate the Confrontation Clause, however, are reviewed de novo.” ¶ 42

¶18 “The constitutional right to a fair trial includes the right to a fair and impartial judge.” ¶ 35

where there is no prospect of imprisonment or confinement after a judgment of guilty.” “Not every reference to an attorney must be construed by police as an invocation of the suspect’s right to counsel,” however, and an officer must cease questioning only where the defendant’s request for counsel is unambiguous.4

132, ¶¶ 42, 52, 915 (2006) (appellate court generally reviews rulings on scope of cross-examination for abuse of discretion but reviews rulings that implicate Confrontation Clause de novo).

We review “[e]videntiary rulings that implicate the Confrontation Clause de novo.” ¶ 42

“[E]ven if a juror is sincere in his promises to uphold the law, a judge may still reasonably find a juror’s equivocation ‘about whether he would take his personal biases in the jury room’ sufficient to substantially impair his duties as a juror, allowing a strike for cause.” ¶ 89, ( ¶¶ 49–50, ).

¶ 40, (judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias).

¶ 30, (noting that promises and coercion may render statements involuntary).

We have upheld strikes for cause of similar jurors who “equivocat[e] about whether [they] would take [their] personal biases in the jury room sufficient to substantially impair [their] duties.” ¶ 89, (internal quotation marks omitted).