Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING SCOPE OF LIFE— AND DEATH-QUALIFYING QUESTIONS IN JURY SELECTION BENNETT, Chief Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.824 A. Background .824 B. The Present Controversy.825 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS.825 A. Purpose And Discretion.825 B. The Starting Point: Morgan v. Illinois.826 1. The decisions below.826 2. The issues presented.827 a. Jury impartiality.827 b. The defendant’s right to challenge .827 c. The defendant’s right to inquire.828 d. Constitutionally sufficient voir dire.829 3. Holding.830 C. An Eighth Circuit Decision.831 D. The McVeigh Decision.832 1. Background.832 2. “General Morgan questions ”.833 3. “Specific Morgan questions”.834 E. The Spectrum Of Case-Specific Questions.834 1. “Abstract” questions.835 2. “Defendant’s status” questions .836 3. “Case-categorization” questions .837 4. “Case-specific ” questions.840 5. “Stake-out” questions.842 6. Summary.844 F. The Fallacies Of The General Rule .844 1. Misconception of Morgan.844 2. Misconception of “stake-out” questions.845 3. Fallacious exclusion of “speculative” questions.845 4. The fallacy of “extremes” .846 5. The lesson learned from experience.847 G. A Sensible Rule.848 III. CONCLUSION.849 What is the proper degree of case-specific questioning, if any, that is permissible in the course of life— or death-qualifying prospective jurors in this federal death-penalty case? That question has animated several discussions the court has had with counsel in the course of pretrial preparations in this case. Because the trial date in this case is fast approaching, the question now requires resolution. I. INTRODUCTION A. Background Defendant Angela Johnson is facing trial beginning in April 2005 on ten capital charges arising from her alleged involvement in the murders in 1993 of five witnesses to the drug-trafficking activities of Johnson’s sometime boyfriend, Dustin Honken. The alleged murder victims are Gregory Nicholson, Lori Duncan (Nicholson’s friend), Amber Duncan and Kandi Duncan (Lori Duncan’s daughters, ages 6 and 10, respectively), and Terry DeGeus. The capital charges are five counts of killing witnesses while engaging in a drug-trafficking conspiracy (“conspiracy murder”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and five counts of killing the same witnesses in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise (“CCE murder”), also in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. More specifically, Counts 1 through 5 of the Second Superseding Indictment in this case charge that, on or about July 25,1993, or in the case of Terry DeGeus, on or about November 5,1993, while engaging in an offense punishable under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and 846, relating to a conspiracy to manufacture and distribute 100 grams or more of pure methamphetamine and 1000 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine between 1992 and 2000, Angela Johnson intentionally killed and counseled, commanded, induced, procured, and caused and aided and abetted the intentional killing of Gregory Nicholson, Lori Duncan, Amber Duncan, Kandi Duncan, and Terry DeGeus, respectively, and that such killings resulted, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Counts 6 through 10 of the Second Superseding Indictment charge that, on or about July 25, 1993, or in the case of Terry DeGeus, on or about November 5, 1993, while working in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise between 1992 and 2000 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(c), Angela Johnson intentionally killed and counseled, commanded, induced, procured, and caused and aided and abetted the intentional killing of Gregory Nicholson, Lori Duncan, Amber Duncan, Kandi Duncan, and Terry DeGeus, respectively, and that such killings resulted, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On November 14, 2002, the government filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty on all ten of these charges. July selection is set to begin in this case on April 12, 2005. B. The Present Controversy The court and the parties have had several discussions of the manner in which jury selection will be conducted in this case. Of the many issues concerning jury selection that the court and the parties have attempted to resolve, one that stands out as requiring separate consideration in a written ruling is the extent, if any, to which the parties should be permitted to ask case-specific questions in the course of life— or death-qualifying prospective jurors. This issue arose without notice in the midst of jury selection in the separate trial of Johnson’s co-defendant, Dustin Honken. At that time, the court and the parties had little opportunity to research, argue, or deliberate on the question of the scope of case-specific voir dire questions. Therefore, this court relied primarily on the decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1205-11 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007, 119 S.Ct. 1148, 143 L.Ed.2d 215 (1999), to impose some limitations on the scope of the parties’ case-specific questions in the process of life— or death-qualifying potential jurors. In this case, where the matter can be anticipated pretrial, the court deems it appropriate to reconsider in more detail, and with more time for reflection, the following question: In an attempt to empanel a fair and impartial jury, what degree of specificity about the facts of this particular case, if any, is it permissible to include in questions to prospective jurors about their ability to consider both life and death sentences, if the defendant were to be found guilty of one or more of the capital offenses with which she is charged? II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Purpose And Discretion Before embarking on a discussion of the proper scope of case-specific questioning in voir dire in a capital case, it is well to keep in mind the purpose of voir dire. As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explained, The Sixth Amendment guarantees “the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961) (internal quotations omitted); see also Pruett v. Norris, 153 F.3d 579, 584 (8th Cir.1998). Voir dire serves the purpose of assuring a criminal defendant that this right will be protected. See Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188, 101 S.Ct. 1629, 68 L.Ed.2d 22 (1981). “Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge’s responsibility to remove prospective jurors who will not be able impartially to follow the court’s instructions and evaluate the evidence cannot be fulfilled. Similarly, lack of adequate voir dire impairs the defendants’ right to exercise peremptory challenges .... ” Id. (internal quotations omitted). United States v. Ortiz, 315 F.3d 873, 888 (8th Cir.2002). Thus, voir dire of prospective jurors serves a critical purpose in affording a criminal defendant a fair trial. It is also well to keep in mind that, at least in the absence of a constitutional requirement or prohibition, “[t]rial judges have broad discretion in determining how best to conduct voir dire.” Id. (noting that this discretion “is not without boundaries”). “The reason given [for such discretion] is that juror bias ‘cannot be easily discerned from an appellate record.’ ” Id. (quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 429, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)). Thus, the court must determine, in the best exercise of its discretion, what degree of case-specific questioning, if any, is permissible in the course of life— or death-qualifying prospective jurors in this federal death-penalty case, guided first and foremost by the goal of voir dire to provide for a fair trial by a panel of impartial jurors. In its search for direction in the exercise of its discretion on this critical issue, the court has discovered that the various paths blazed by the lower courts all have at their trail head the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992), the Court’s most recent decision on life— and death-qualification of jurors in capital cases. Although this starting point is clear, the court finds that some of the paths marked out from Morgan might actually lead the court astray. B. The Starting Point: Morgan v. Illinois In Morgan, the United States Supreme Court considered “whether, during voir dire for a capital offense, a state trial court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, refuse inquiry into whether a potential juror would automatically impose the death penalty upon conviction of the defendant.” Morgan, 504 U.S. at 721, 112 S.Ct. 2222. The Court concluded that a trial court may not refuse such inquiry. Id. at 739, 112 S.Ct. 2222. Although neither the issue as framed by the Court in Morgan nor the Court’s analysis of that issue involved the propriety or impropriety of case-specific voir dire, the Morgan decision is nevertheless instructive on the proper role of voir dire in capital cases. Therefore, this court will review the background to the Morgan decision and the Court’s analysis. 1. The decisions below In Morgan, in order to “death qualify” the jury, as required by Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), the trial court had “questioned each venire whether any member had moral or religious principles so strong that he or she could not impose the death penalty ‘regardless of the facts,’ ” or had asked the variant, “ “Would you automatically vote against the death penalty no matter what the facts of the case were?’ ” Morgan, 504 U.S. at 722-23, 112 S.Ct. 2222. The defendant, however, requested that the court also ask prospective jurors the following “reverse-Witherspoon ” question in order to “life qualify” the jurors: “‘If you found [the defendant] guilty, would you automatically vote to impose the death penalty no matter what the facts are?’ ” Id. at 723, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (quoting the defendant’s proposed question). The trial court rejected that request and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Id. at 723, 112 S.Ct. 2222. The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that “nothing requires a trial court to question potential jurors so as to identify and exclude any who would vote for the death penalty in every case after conviction of a capital offense.” Id. at 724, 112 S.Ct. 2222. The United States Supreme Court, however, reversed the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court. 2. The issues presented In Morgan, the Court concluded that determination of whether a trial court can refuse a request for a life-qualifying inquiry required resolution of four issues: “[1] whether a jury provided to a capital defendant at the sentencing phase must be impartial; [2] whether such defendant is entitled to challenge for cause and have removed on the ground of bias a prospective juror who will automatically vote for the death penalty irrespective of the facts or the trial court’s instructions of law; [3] whether on voir dire the court must, on defendant’s request, inquire into the prospective jurors’ views on capital punishment; and [4] whether the voir dire in this case was constitutionally sufficient.” Id. at 726, 112 S.Ct. 2222. The Court’s resolution of these issues is instructive here. a. Jury impartiality As to the first issue, the Court reiterated that “due process alone has long demanded that, if a jury is to be provided the defendant, regardless of whether the Sixth Amendment requires it, the jury must stand impartial and indifferent to the extent commanded by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. at 727, 112 S.Ct. 2222; see also Brown v. Luebbers, 344 F.3d 770, 781 (8th Cir.2003) (citing Morgan, 504 U.S. at 727, 112 S.Ct. 2222, as clearly establishing federal law that “ ‘the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, “indifferent” jurors’ ”), vacated on other grounds on rehearing en banc, 371 F.3d 458 (2004), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1397, 161 L.Ed.2d 192 (2005). The Court then reiterated that it had relied on “the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to ensure the impartiality of any jury that will undertake capital sentencing.” Id. at 728, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (emphasis in the original). Thus, on the first issue, the court held that a defendant is entitled to an impartial jury. b. The defendant’s right to challenge As to the second issue—whether a capital defendant is entitled to challenge for cause and have removed on the ground of bias a prospective juror who will automatically vote for the death penalty irrespective of the facts or the trial court’s instructions of law—the Court held as follows: A juror who will automatically vote for the death penalty in every case will fail in good faith to consider the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances as the instructions require him to do. Indeed, because such a juror has already formed an opinion on the merits, the presence or absence of either aggravating or mitigating circumstances is entirely irrelevant to such a juror. Therefore, based on the requirement of impartiality embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a capital defendant may challenge for cause any prospective juror who maintains such views. If even one such juror is empaneled and the death sentence is imposed, the State is disentitled to execute the sentence. Morgan, 504 U.S. at 729, 112 S.Ct. 2222. Thus, the Court in Morgan held that, not only is a capital defendant entitled to an impartial jury, but such a defendant is also entitled to strike for cause any juror who will automatically vote for death if the defendant is convicted, without regard to the facts or the court’s instructions on the law. See United States v. Paid, 217 F.3d 989, 1004 (8th Cir.2000) (pursuant to Morgan, “[a] defendant subject to the death penalty may properly challenge for cause any juror ‘who will automatically vote for the death penalty in every case’ and who will not consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances as required by the instructions”) (quoting Morgan, 504 U.S. at 729, 112 S.Ct. 2222). c. The defendant’s right to inquire It is the third and fourth issues considered by the Court in Morgan, however, that are perhaps of most interest here, because they go precisely to the constitutional minimum requirements for adequate voir dire to life-qualify potential jurors. As to the third issue, whether on voir dire the court must, on defendant’s request, inquire into the prospective jurors’ views on capital punishment, the Court concluded, first, that “part of the guarantee of a defendant’s right to an impartial jury is an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors.” Id. The Court reiterated, “ ‘Voir dire plays a critical function in assuring the criminal defendant that his [constitutional] right to an impartial jury will be honored. Without an adequate voir dire, the trial judge’s responsibility to remove prospective jurors who will not be able impartially to follow the court’s instructions and evaluate the evidence cannot be fulfilled.’ ” Id. at 729-30, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (quoting Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188, 101 S.Ct. 1629, 68 L.Ed.2d 22 (1981) (plurality opinion)). “Hence,” the Court explained, “ ‘[t]he exercise of [the trial court’s] discretion, and the restrictions upon inquiries at the request of counsel, [are] subject to the essential demands of fairness.’ ” Id. at 730, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (quoting Aldridge v. United States, 283 U.S. 308, 310, 51 S.Ct. 470, 75 L.Ed. 1054 (1931)). Even with these principles established, the Court recognized that “[t]he adequacy of voir dire is not easily the subject of appellate review.” Id. Nevertheless, the Court observed that it had “not hesitated, particularly in capital cases, to find that certain inquires must be made to effectuate constitutional protections.” Id. For example, under appropriate circumstances, the defendant must “ ‘be permitted to have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias.’ ” Id. at 730-31, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (quoting Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 527, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973)). Also, and of more interest here, “[t]o preserve this impartiality, Witherspoon [v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968),] constrained the State’s exercise of challenges for cause: [A] State may not entrust the determination of whether a man should live or die to a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death. Specifically, we hold that a sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction. No defendant can constitutionally be put to death at the hands of a tribunal so selected.” Id., at 520-523, 88 S.Ct., at 1776-1778 (footnotes omitted). See also Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 179-180, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 1768-1769, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986). Id. at 732, 112 S.Ct. 2222. Thus, Morgan read Witherspoon to bar voir dire designed to empanel a pro-death jury. The Court in Morgan noted that, continuing where Witherspoon left off, it had “held affirmatively” in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), “that ‘the State may exclude from capital sentencing juries that “class” of veniremen whose views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties in accordance with their instructions or their oaths.’ ” Id. at 732-33, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (quoting Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 n. 5, 105 S.Ct. 844). Therefore, the Court noted that it had thereafter spoken in terms of “Witherspoon-excludables.” Id. at 733, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (citing Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 180, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986)). Next, the Court recognized its prior holding that “ ‘the State must be given the opportunity to identify such prospective jurors [whose opposition to the death penalty is so strong that they cannot impartially determine a capital defendant’s guilt or innocence] by questioning them at voir dire about their views of the death penalty.’ ” Id. (quoting Lockhart, 476 U.S. at 170 n. 7, 106 S.Ct. 1758, and also citing Witt, 469 U.S. at 423, 105 S.Ct. 844, as requiring questioning of the potential jurors to determine lack of impartiality). Thus, although voir dire cannot be used to empanel a pro-death jury, the Court in Morgan reiterated that the State must be allowed to voir dire prospective jurors to determine whether or not they are “death-qualified,” and the trial court may strike jurors for cause who cannot be “death-qualified.” See Paul, 217 F.3d at 1004 (citing Morgan to conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking for cause jurors who indicated that they could not fairly consider imposing the death penalty as a possible sentence, regardless of the instructions from the court). The issue before the Court in Morgan, however, was the “reverse-Witherspoon” issue of whether or not the defendant must be afforded the opportunity to voir dire prospective jurors to determine whether or not they are also “life-qualified.” The Court resolved that issue as follows: We deal here with petitioner’s ability to exercise intelligently his complementary challenge for cause against those biased persons on the venire who as jurors would unwaveringly impose death after a finding of guilt. Were voir dire not available to lay bare the foundation of petitioner’s challenge for cause against those prospective jurors who would always impose death following conviction, his right not to be tried by such jurors would be rendered as nugatory and [*734] meaningless as the State’s right, in the absence of questioning, to strike those who would never do so. Morgan, 504 U.S. at 733-34, 112 S.Ct. 2222. Thus, Morgan requires that prospective jurors also be subjected to voir dire to determine whether they are “life-qualified” as well as “death-qualified.” d. Constitutionally sufficient voir dire The last issue before the Court in Morgan was “whether the questions propounded by the trial court were sufficient to satisfy petitioner’s right to make [a life-qualification] inquiry.” Id. at 734, 112 S.Ct. 2222. On that issue, the Court rejected the Illinois Supreme Court’s conclusion that “general fairness” and “follow the law” questions would be sufficient to detect jurors who would automatically vote for the death penalty, because the Court was not “convinced that such general inquiries could detect those jurors with views preventing or substantially impairing their duties in accordance with their instructions and oath.” Id. Indeed, the Court observed that “such jurors — whether they be unalterably in favor of, or opposed to, the death penalty in every case— by definition are ones who cannot perform their duties in accordance with law, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.” Id. at 735, 112 S.Ct. 2222. The Court explained further: As to general questions of fairness and impartiality, such jurors could in all truth and candor respond affirmatively, personally confident that such dogmatic views are fair and impartial, while leaving the specific concern unprobed. More importantly, however, the belief that death should be imposed ipso facto upon conviction of a capital offense reflects directly on that individual’s inability to follow the law. See supra, at 2229. Any juror who would impose death regardless of the facts and circumstances of conviction cannot follow the dictates of law. See Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. [28,] 34-35, 106 S.Ct. 1683, 1687-1688, 90 L.Ed.2d 27 [ (1986) ] (plurality opinion). It may be that a juror could, in good conscience, swear to uphold the law and yet be unaware that maintaining such dogmatic beliefs about the death penalty would prevent him or her from doing so. A defendant on trial for his life must be permitted on voir dire [*736] to ascertain whether his prospective jurors function under such misconception. Morgan, 504 U.S. at 735-36, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (footnote omitted). The Court then held that the risk that such unqualified jurors might have been empaneled in the case before it and that their views had “infected” the defendant’s capital sentencing was “ ‘unacceptable in light of the ease with which that risk could have been minimized.’ ” Id. at 736, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (quoting Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. at 36, 106 S.Ct. 1683). Instead, the petitioner “was entitled, upon his request, to inquiry discerning those jurors who, even prior to the State’s case in chief, had predetermined the terminating issue of his trial, that being whether to impose the death penalty.” Id. In rejecting the contrary position of the dissenter, the Court insisted that jurors who would automatically vote for death upon conviction of a capital offense “obviously deem mitigating evidence to be irrelevant to their decision to impose the death penalty: They not only refuse to give such evidence any weight but are also plainly saying that mitigating evidence is not worth their consideration and that they will not consider it.” Id. at 736, 112 S.Ct. 2222. In the Court’s view, the dissenter’s position was contrary to the Illinois statutory scheme, which required the jury to consider any aggravating and any mitigating factors that are relevant to the imposition of the death penalty. Id. at 736-37, 112 S.Ct. 2222. Under such a scheme, “[a]ny juror to whom mitigating factors are ... irrelevant should be disqualified for cause, for that juror has formed an opinion concerning the merits of the case without basis in the evidence developed at trial.” Id. at 739, 112 S.Ct. 2222. 3. Holding To summarize, in light of its resolution of the four issues, the Court in Morgan held that a defendant is entitled to make an inquiry into potential jurors’ ability to impose a life sentence, as well as their ability to impose a death sentence, on the basis of the facts of the case and the trial court’s instructions on the law, not merely on the basis of the defendant’s conviction of a capital offense. See id. (“Accordingly, the defendant in this case was entitled to have the inquiry made that he proposed to the trial judge,” which was a “life-qualifying” or “revers e-Wither-spoon" question, framed as follows: “‘If you found [the defendant] guilty, would you automatically vote to impose the death penalty no matter what the facts are?’ ”). Because the petitioner in the case then before the Court had been afforded only inadequate voir dire on the life-qualification of the potential jurors, the Court held that his death sentence could not stand, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. More to the point for present purposes, the Morgan decision stands for the proposition that, in order to ensure the fairness and impartiality of the jury, a capital defendant must be afforded the opportunity to conduct adequate voir dire to determine whether potential jurors are capable of imposing a life sentence upon conviction in accordance with the facts and the law, just as the prosecution must be afforded the opportunity to conduct adequate voir dire to determine whether potential jurors are capable of imposing a death sentence upon conviction in accordance with the facts and the law. See id. at 729-34, 112 S.Ct. 2222. The Court determined in Morgan that general questions of fairness and impartiality and ability to “follow the law” are not sufficient to afford the defendant adequate voir dire; rather, the Court held that the defendant was entitled to ask, “ ‘If you found [the defendant] guilty, would you automatically vote to impose the death penalty no matter what the facts are?’ ” Id. at 739, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (“[T]he defendant in this case was entitled to have the inquiry made that he proposed to the trial judge.”); see also id. at 723, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (quoting the defendant’s requested inquiry). While the decision in Morgan establishes the minimum inquiry constitutionally required to life-qualify a jury, it does not, on its face, require, permit, or prohibit any degree of case-specificity in voir dire questions for the purpose of life— or death-qualifying prospective jurors, because the inquiry proposed by the defendant in that case did not involve any ease-specific component. Thus, the vexing question left unanswered in Morgan is whether any case-specific inquiry is appropriate to determine whether a juror can truly consider both a life and a death sentence in a particular case — in other words, can a determination be made on a juror’s ability to impose either sentence “no matter what the facts are,” id. at 723, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (the question as proposed by the defendant), or “regardless of the facts and circumstances of conviction,” id. at 735, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (the question as framed by the Court), without some inquiry into the juror’s response to the facts of the particular case? C. An Eighth Circuit Decision The court has found only one discussion of the scope of proper voir dire pursuant to Morgan by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Ramsey v. Bowersox, 149 F.3d 749 (8th Cir.1998), the defendant proposed the following voir dire questions: Could each of you consider the death penalty in this case with the understanding that under Missouri law you are never [*757] required to impose it? If Roy Ramsey is convicted of first-degree murder, are there any of you who feel he should get the death penalty regardless of any mitigation circumstances? If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that Roy Ramsey is guilty of first-degree murder, would the defense have to convince you that he should not get the death penalty? Would your views on the death penalty prevent or substantially impair your ability to follow the following instruction: You are not compelled to fix death as the punishment, even if you do not find the existence of one or more mitigating circumstances, sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances or circumstances which you find to exist. You must consider all of the circumstances in deciding whether to assess and declare the punishment at death. Whether that is to be your final decision rests with you. If you find one or all of the aggravating circumstances exist beyond a reasonable doubt, could you still consider life without parole as a possible punishment? If you found aggravating circumstances exist beyond a reasonable doubt and that they warrant the death penalty, could you still consider life without parole as a possible punishment? If you find aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and find that the mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances, would you still consider life without probation or parole as a possible punishment? Ramsey, 149 F.3d at 756-57. However, the trial court did not ask the defendant’s proposed questions: Rather than posing these questions, the trial court told the jurors, “I’m going to ask you some questions [about] imposition of the death penalty. These questions are asked of you in the abstract, understanding that no evidence has been presented.... If you were selected as a juror in this case, you must be able to vote for both of the punishments authorized by law. My question is would you be capable of voting for a sentence of death? Would you be capable of voting for a sentence of life without parole?” (Trial Trans, at 578-80.) To help the attorneys exercise their peremptory challenges, the court also asked, “If you were chosen as a juror, would you have a tendency to favor either the death penalty, the life imprisonment penalty, or neither?” (Trial Trans, at 580.) Ramsey, 149 F.3d at 757. The appellate court’s concise analysis of the issue consisted of the following: The trial court’s queries were more direct and succinct than Ramsey’s proposed questions, and addressed the crucial disqualification issue of whether the prospective jurors would automatically vote for or against the death penalty in every case, see Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 728-29, 732, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992). Because the trial court’s questioning reasonably assured Ramsey of a chance to detect a potential juror’s prejudice about the death penalty, see [United States v.] Spaar, 748 F.2d [1249,] 1253 [ (8th Cir.1984) ], Ramsey was not denied his rights to due process and a fair trial. Ramsey, 149 F.3d at 757. The Ramsey decision suggests that abstract questions about whether the prospective jurors would vote for or against the death penalty in every case are sufficient to satisfy Morgan’s constitutional standard. However, the Ramsey decision, like the Morgan decision, sheds little light on the propriety or impropriety of case-specific questions, because the defendant did not propose any such questions. Rather, the defendant’s questions were about the burden of proof and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors, all in the abstract. See id. at 756-57. Consequently, Ramsey cannot be read to hold that case-specific questions are either permitted or prohibited. Therefore, this court must look further afield to determine whether case-specific questions are required, permitted, or prohibited. D. The McVeigh Decision In a truly notorious federal death-penal-. ty case, however, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals did confront more directly the question with which this court now grapples. That case was United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1205-11 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007, 119 S.Ct. 1148, 143 L.Ed.2d 215 (1999), which arose from the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 1. Background In McVeigh, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that “it appears that the defense objected to the court’s refusal to allow it to ask prospective jurors whether the facts of the bombing already known to them as a result of pretrial publicity predisposed them to vote in favor of the death penalty.” McVeigh, 153 F.3d at 1205. The defendant contended that the trial court had violated Morgan by restricting his ability to ask two types of “Morgan questions”: “general Morgan questions” which “consisted] of non-context-specific questions that generally [sought] to determine a juror’s core value system, ie., whether the juror would automatically impose the death penalty if [the defendant] were convicted of a capital offense”; and “specific Morgan questions” which “consisted] of context specific questions that focus on whether the facts of the bombing, as revealed through pretrial publicity, had predisposed prospective jurors toward imposing the death penalty on anyone convicted of this particular crime.” Id. at 1206. The court considered the two types of questions separately in the context of its reading of Morgan as requiring that, “upon a defendant’s request, a trial court is obligated to ensure that prospective jurors are asked sufficient questions to allow the court and parties to determine whether, should the defendant be convicted, the jurors have already decided to apply the death penalty, or whether they would truly weigh any mitigating and aggravating factors found at the penalty phase of the trial.” Id. 2. “General Morgan questions” The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the defendant had been precluded from asking only one “general Morgan question,” which was the following: “If the allegations did — if you served on the jury and heard all the evidence in the guilt/innocence part of the trial and the jury voted that Mr. McVeigh was guilty, would you feel in that instance that the death penalty automatically should apply?” Id. The court held that the question was improper, first, because it was “predicated on pretrial ‘allegations’ made against” the defendant and “it asked the juror to speculate as to her opinion based on allegations not even in evidence.” Id. at 1207. Second, the court ruled that the question was improper, because it was “broader than the scope of the inquiry Morgan requires.” Id. Specifically, The question approved in Morgan was the following: “If you found [the defendant] guilty, would you automatically vote to impose the death penalty no matter what the facts are?” Morgan, 504 U.S. at 723, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court felt such a question was necessary to identify jurors who would always impose the death penalty upon conviction of a capital offense “regardless of the facts and circumstances of conviction.” Id. at 735, 504 U.S. 719, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492. Here, by contrast, the question was predicated on the assumption that the juror had heard the evidence and was asked, given that evidence and a finding of guilt, how she would vote on the question of penalty. Since the juror had not yet heard the evidence, the question improperly called for speculation and sought a pre-commitment from the juror. McVeigh, 153 F.3d at 1207. The court explained, “When a defendant seeks to ask a juror to speculate or precommit on how that juror might vote based on any particular facts, the question strays beyond the purpose and protection of Morgan.” Id. Thus, the decision in McVeigh seems to turn the minimum inquiry that Morgan requires into the maximum inquiry that Morgan permits, while suggesting that any attempt to probe a juror’s inclination to impose the death penalty on the basis of facts of a specific case necessarily involves “speculation” and an attempt to “precom-mit” the juror to a particular position. 3. “Specific Morgan questions” In McVeigh, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals also concluded that the trial court had properly excluded “several inquiries that we have termed ‘specific Morgan questions’ — that is, case-specific questions on whether prospective jurors had been so influenced by the facts of the bombing, as revealed by pretrial publicity, that they believed death was the only appropriate punishment for anyone convicted of the bombing.” Id. Again, the court reasoned that “Morgan does not require courts to allow questions regarding the evidence expected to be presented during the guilt phase of the trial.” Id. at 1208. The court also noted that it had previously joined other courts holding that “Morgan does not require a court to allow questions regarding how a juror would vote during the penalty phase if presented with specific mitigating or aggravating factors.” Id. (citing eases). The court again reasoned that the “specific Morgan questions” at issue in that case “went beyond the scope of Morgan ” and were designed to pre-commit jurors to a position favorable to the defendant: Essentially, the questions were designed to ascertain whether the jurors felt that the circumstances of the bombing were so aggravating that no mitigating factor could compensate. Thus, these were case-specific questions seeking to determine what prospective jurors thought of the death penalty in regards to this particular case, rather than the jurors’ core value system regarding imposition of the death penalty. Morgan, however, is designed to illuminate a juror’s basic beliefs “regardless of the facts and circumstances of conviction,” Morgan, 504 U.S. at 735, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492, not to allow defendants to pre-determine jurors’ views of the appropriate punishment for the particular crime charged. Morgan does not require that the questions at issue be asked. McVeigh, 153 F.3d at 1208. The court also concluded that the defendant had otherwise had an adequate opportunity to life-qualify the jurors, e.g., through a juror questionnaire exploring jurors’ attitudes toward the death penalty and the cases in which such a penalty was appropriate or inappropriate; voir dire questioning of each juror about his or her ability to consider punishment less than death for a criminal act in which someone was killed; explanations by the court that the law required consideration of mitigating circumstances before deciding what penalty to impose; questioning about general fairness and impartiality; and questioning using “appropriately phrased Morgan questions.” Id. at 1208-09. Thus, McVeigh stands for the proposition that all case-specific questions are improper, because they exceed the scope of what Morgan requires. E. The Spectrum Of Case-Specific Questions Although the court in McVeigh identified only two sorts of ease-specific questions implicating Morgan, “general Morgan questions” and “specific Morgan questions,” this court’s review of other decisions suggests that there are more, possibly overlapping categories to consider. Specifically, the court finds that the applicable case law, state and federal, identifies at least the following five categories of “Morgan questions”: (1) “abstract” questions; (2) “defendant’s status” questions; (3) “case-categorization” questions; (4) “case-specific” questions; and (5) “stakeout” questions. The court, therefore, turns to identification of what questions, in its view, fall into these categories and how courts have ruled on their permissibility under Morgan. 1. “Abstract” questions The quintessential example of an “abstract” question is, of course, the question proposed by the defendant and approved by the Court in Morgan: “ ‘If you found [the defendant] guilty, would you automatically vote to impose the death penalty no matter what the facts are?’ ” Morgan, 504 U.S. at 723, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (quoting the defendant’s proposed inquiry); see id. at 739, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (holding that the defendant was entitled to such an inquiry). Such a question did not purport to probe jurors’ attitudes toward imposition of the death penalty in any particular circumstances, but only to ask, in the abstract, whether the jurors would always impose the death penalty if the defendant was found guilty, without consideration of the specific facts of the case. In Ramsey, the trial court expressly identified comparable life-qualifying and death-qualifying questions as questions “asked in the abstract.” Ramsey, 149 F.3d at 757 (approving the trial court’s use of the following questions: “[W]ouId you be capable of voting for a sentence of death? Would you be capable of voting for a sentence of life without parole?”). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved such “abstract” questions, finding that they satisfied Morgan, because they “addressed the crucial disqualification issue of whether the prospective jurors would automatically vote for or against the death penalty in every case,” and thereby “reasonably assured [the defendant] a chance to detect a potential juror’s prejudice about the death penalty.” Id. Thus, the court concluded that such “abstract” questions adequately protected the defendant’s right to due process and a fair trial. Id. In McVeigh, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals went still further by holding that such “abstract” questions were the only ones that could properly be asked under Morgan, reasoning that “Morgan ... is designed to illuminate a juror’s basic beliefs ‘regardless of the facts and circumstances of conviction,’ ” while any questions about “what prospective jurors thought of the death penalty in regards to this particular case [would] allow defendants to pre-determine jurors’ views of the appropriate punishment for the particular crime charged.” McVeigh, 153 F.3d at 1208 (quoting Morgan, 504 U.S. at 735, 112 S.Ct. 2222). Other courts have, likewise, taken the position that such “abstract” questions are not only permissible, but sufficient, to protect a capital defendant’s constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. See, e.g., Oken v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir.2000) (the trial court’s question to prospective jurors in a capital trial was sufficient to ensure against a death-biased jury where court asked, “Do you have any strong feelings, one way or the other, with regard to the death penalty?” and did not ask whether jurors would automatically impose the death penalty in rape-murder cases, reasoning that Morgan “does not require crime-specific voir dire questions”); Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 183 (5th Cir.1999) (Morgan is satisfied if the court asks whether jurors would vote automatically for the death penalty); McQueen v. Scroggy, 99 F.3d 1302, 1329-30 (6th Cir.1996) (a trial court’s question to prospective jurors was sufficient to ensure against a death-biased jury when the court asked if prospective jurors could consider all possible penalties). Thus, “abstract” questions appear to be always permissible and generally viewed to be sufficient to satisfy a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. 2. “Defendant’s status” questions Wbat this court means by “defendant’s status” questions, the second category of “Morgan questions” this court has identified, are questions that do not raise facts about the alleged crime, but about the defendant’s status separate and independent of the alleged crime. The Supreme Court reiterated in Morgan that at least one such “defendant’s status” question is required, in appropriate cases, noting that, where the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition on race discrimination is implicated, the defendant must “ ‘be permitted to have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias.’ ” Morgan, 504 U.S. at 730-31, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (quoting Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 527, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973)). On the other hand, in Richmond v. Polk, 375 F.3d 309 (4th Cir.2004), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s contention that he was entitled under Morgan “to ask prospective jurors at voir dire whether, once informed that he had previously been convicted of first-degree murder, they would still be able to consider mitigating factors and impose a life sentence.” Richmond, 375 F.3d at 329. The state trial court had rejected such a question as a “stake-out” question “aimed at determining a prospective juror’s answers to legal questions before being informed of the legal principles applicable to their sentencing recommendation.” Id. Instead, the trial court permitted the defendant “ ‘to ask broad questions about whether they can consider any and all aggravating circumstances and balance that against any and all mitigating circumstances whatever they may be,”’ i.e., the trial court permitted only “abstract” questions. Id. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed and, on a habeas petition, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court was neither “contrary to” nor “an unreasonable application” of Morgan. Id. at 330. The federal appellate court agreed with the state courts that “Morgan does not require that a capital defendant be allowed to determine at voir dire what a prospective juror’s sentencing decision will be if presented with a specific state of evidence or circumstances. Rather, Morgan requires that a capital defendant be afforded an adequate opportunity at voir dire to identify prospective jurors ‘who even prior to the State’s case in chief, [have] predetermined ... to impose the death penalty.’ ” Id. (quoting Morgan, 504 U.S. at 736, 112 S.Ct. 2222). Although the defendant had been precluded from asking what this court describes as his “status” question, the court held that he had otherwise been “allowed to question prospective jurors about their beliefs on the death penalty and ability to consider mitigating evidence irrespective of the facts and circumstances surrounding the [charged murders],” where he had been allowed to ask a series of what this court defines as “abstract” questions. Id. at 330-31. Another “defendant’s status” question might involve questions about the ability of the jurors to consider the defendant’s youth as a mitigating factor. In Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173 (5th Cir.1999), the defendant contended that the state trial court had erred “in refusing to allow [the defendant] to inquire during voir dire whether three prospective jurors were able to consider youth as a potentially mitigating factor.” Trevino, 168 F.3d at 182. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had rejected this contention, on the grounds that the question the defendant posed was “an attempt to bind the jurors to consider youth as a mitigating factor without informing them of the applicable law”; that the trial court had, in fact, allowed the defendant to inquire whether these prospective jurors could consider youth as a mitigating factor; and that Morgan did not require such an inquiry into whether prospective jurors “could consider individual extenuating circumstances to be mitigating.” Id. at 182-83. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that determination, even assuming that the defendant had not been allowed to ask whether prospective jurors could consider youth as a mitigating factor, because the Texas courts had not unreasonably applied Morgan, noting that “this circuit has previously stated that Morgan only ‘involves the narrow question of whether, in a capital case, jurors must be asked whether they would automatically impose the death penalty upon conviction of the defendant.’ ” Id. at 183 (quoting United States v. Greer, 968 F.2d 433, 437 n. 7 (5th Cir.1992), and also citing McVeigh, 153 F.3d at 1208). The difference between the “defendant’s status” question about race, which the Court in Morgan acknowledged would be required, in appropriate circumstances, and the “defendant’s status” question about a prior conviction for first-degree murder, which the court in Richmond rejected, is readily discernible: A defendant’s race is both self-evident (requiring no proof at trial) and protected by the Constitution, while a defendant’s status as a felon requires proof (or at least admission or stipulation) in the course of trial and enjoys no such constitutional protection. See, e.g., Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997) (a defendant in a felon-in-possession case may avoid proof of his prior felony conviction by stipulation). While “youth” may have some constitutional protection, see, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (the execution of individuals who were under 18 years of age at the time of their capital crimes is prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments), the effect of “youth” as a mitigating factor, see Trevino, 168 F.3d at 183, may also depend upon proof at trial. 3. “Case-categorization ” questions The third kind of question this court has identified is what this court describes as a “case-categorization” question. Such a question asks a prospective juror about his or her ability to consider a life or death sentence, or both, in the particular category of capital case, such as murder-for-hire, felony-murder, or rape-murder, that the jurors would hear. Some courts consider such questions to be permissible, while other do not. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the permissibility of such a question in Green v. Johnson, 160 F.3d 1029 (5th Cir.1998), where the defendant objected to the prosecution’s use of purportedly “case-specific” questions to “pre-commit” the jurors. More specifically, the defendant argued “that his counsel failed to object to the prosecution’s allegedly asking hypothetical questions using facts exactly similar to his case in order to obtain commitments from prospective jurors regarding his guilt.” Green, 160 F.3d at 1036. The court rejected this contention: The record shows that the prosecution never asked prospective jurors a hypothetical question based on the specific facts of the case at hand, thereby “committing” them to find Green guilty. Rather, the prosecution properly limited itself to hypothetical questions regarding the application of general legal issues that would be involved in the case. Specifically, the prosecution asked whether a juror could convict for capital murder if (i) the predicate felony was unsuccessful (e.g., murder in the course of an unsuccessful burglary) or (ii) a defendant were an aider and abettor rather than the triggerman. In both instances, the [*1037] prosecution’s statement of Texas law was substantially correct, and the jurors were asked general hypothetical questions not implicating the unique facts of the case at hand. Therefore, neither the prosecution’s hypothetical questions nor its explanation of applicable Texas law was the basis for a valid objection. Green, 160 F.3d at 1036-37 (footnotes omitted); see also id. at 1037 (also holding that the prosecution did not use improper hypothetical questions attempting to determine whether jurors “could (not would) find that it was a ‘deliberate’ act to wound a victim with the first shot and then shoot the victim additional times to prevent the victim from identifying his killer,” because “it is clear from the context of each question that the thrust of the prosecution’s examination was to ensure that the juror could distinguish between ‘intentional’ and ‘deliberate’ acts”). Thus, in Green, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals approved use of questions that explored the jurors’ ability to convict a defendant if certain categories of conduct occurred, based on legal distinctions that had to be addressed in the case at hand. Some time earlier, in United States v. Flores, 63 F.3d 1342 (5th Cir.1995), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had also considered the propriety of what this court calls “case categorization” questions for purposes of probing a juror’s attitude toward the death penalty, not just guilt or innocence. In Flores, a particular juror “originally did not indicate that he was opposed to the death penalty.” Flores, 63 F.3d at 1356. However, “[l]ater, [the juror] apparently became aware that some of the victims in the case had been involved in drug trafficking and informed the court that he could never vote for the death penalty in any case in which the victim was involved with drugs.” Id. Thereafter, the juror “agreed with the government’s statement that ‘if the person who is killed is another drug dealer or a competitor or somebody else who is in the same organization or something like that, in those situations [he] would never consider the death penalty, [and] would never impose the death penalty.’ ” Id. The juror maintained that he could not impose the death penalty where both the defendant and the victim were “in drugs.” Id. The court held that the questioning and the exclusion of the juror were proper: While the process of qualifying jurors to sit in a capital case is of particular importance, “[hjere, as elsewhere, the quest is for jurors who will conscientiously apply the law and find the facts.” Witt, 469 U.S. at 423, 105 S.Ct. at 851-52. The district court is not limited to disqualifying only those jurors who would never vote for the death penalty, id. at 421, 105 S.Ct. at 850-51, but can excuse those who cannot set aside their own predilections in deference to the rule of law. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 176, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 1766-67, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986). In [the juror’s] case, the source of his bias was not the death penalty in the abstract, or in some irrelevant hypothetical case. [The juror] volunteered that he would not be able to overcome his bias and vote in favor of the death penalty where the victim was a co-conspirator in a drug trafficking case. The district court was not required to ignore this bias and did not abuse its discretion by excusing [the juror]. Cal.Rptr.2d 321, 875 P.2d 36.) Accordingly, the exclusions were proper under Wainwright and Pinholster. We note that none of the foregoing authorities suggests that, for voir dire purposes, the prosecutor must disclose all facts, aggravating or otherwise, that comprise the People’s case. Flores, 63 F.3d at 1356. Thus, the court found it appropriate to probe a juror’s attitude toward imposition of the death penalty in a case in a certain category, a case in which both the defendant and the victim were “in drugs,” not just in the “abstract”; indeed, the court seemed to suggest that merely “abstract” or “irrelevant hypothetical” questions were not as instructive about a juror’s true attitude as the juror’s response to the category of case actually at issue. Similarly, in People v. Ervin, 22 Cal.4th 48, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 623, 990 P.2d 506 (2000), the California Supreme Court noted that it had “recently indicated that the court properly may exclude prospective jurors who have expressed an inability to impose the death penalty in any felony-murder case.” Ervin, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 623, 990 P.2d at 516 (citing California v. Pinholster, 1 Cal.4th 865, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571 (1992)). The court then considered the applicability of its prior decision to voir dire questions in a murder-for-hire case: As we stated in Pinholster, “Each juror’s reluctance to impose the death penalty was based not on an evaluation of the particular facts of the case, but on an abstract inability to impose the death penalty in a felony-murder case.” (Id. at p. 916, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571; see also People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1114, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384 [exclusion proper for prospective jurors unable to consider all sentencing alternatives, including death].) Pinholster reached its conclusion even though the trial court had permitted the prosecutor to question the prospective jurors regarding their attitudes toward the specific facts of the case. (People v. Pinholster, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 918, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571.) Pinholster controls here. The record in this case discloses that each of the prospective jurors in question expressed a similar abstract inability to impose death on the hirer in a murder-for-hire case. Paraphrasing Pinholster, supra, 1 Cal.4th at page 917, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571, the people of the State of California have determined that murder for hire is a category of crime for which a defendant may be subject to death, depending on the circumstances. We should defer to the trial court’s finding, based on their voir dire responses, that the prospective jurors at issue here were unable to follow the law in this respect. (See People v. Fudge, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1094, 31 Ervin, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 623, 990 P.2d at 516. Thus, the California Supreme Court holds that what this court calls “case categorization” questions are appropriate to determine whether or not jurors can follow the law applicable to the category of capital case they will hear. In contrast, in Oken v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d 259 (4th Cir.2000), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that courts are required to ask prospective jurors whether they would automatically impose the death penalty in rape-murder cases, because Morgan “does not require crime-specific voir dire questions.” Oken, 220 F.3d at 266 n. 4 (noting that the defendant had conceded as much). Instead, the court found that questions that “explicitly referred to the death penalty and asked whether the potential juror’s feelings about the death penalty were ‘strong,’” — i.e., what this court calls “abstract” questions — were sufficient under Morgan. Id. at 266. Thus, there is a split in authority on the propriety, or at least the necessity, of such “case-categorization” questions to determine whether jurors can be fair and impartial. 4. “Case-specific” questions This court defines a “case-specific” questions as questions that ask whether or not jurors can consider or would vote to impose a life sentence or a death sentence in a case involving stated facts, either mitigating or aggravating, that are or might be actually at issue in the case that the jurors would hear. Thus, the category of “case-specific” questions, so defined, is a “general” category that may encompass “defendant’s status” and “case-categorization” questions, as well as questions that address facts specific to, and subject to proof in, a particular case. “Case-specific” questions may also be “stake-out” questions, a matter to which the court will return below. This court acknowledges that the clear majority of courts reject “Morgan questions” with any degree of case specificity. See, e.g., McVeigh, 153 F.3d at 1205-08 (also citing eases); see also Richmond, 375 F.3d at 329-31 (the defendant was not entitled to ask whether the jurors could still consider mitigating circumstances if they learned that he had previously been convicted of first-degree murder); Oken, 220 F.3d at 266 n. 4 (the court was not required to ask prospective jurors about whether they would automatically impose the death penalty in a rape-murder case); Trevino, 168 F.3d at 183 (.Morgan does not require specific questions regarding specific mitigating or aggravating factors); United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 879 (4th Cir.1996) (it was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to refuse to allow detailed questioning during voir dire concerning specific mitigating factors), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1253, 117 S.Ct. 2414, 138 L.Ed.2d 179 (1997), and cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1253, 117 S.Ct. 2414, 138 L.Ed.2d 179 (1997), and cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1253, 117 S.Ct. 2414, 138 L.Ed.2d 179 (1997); United States v. McCullah, 76 F.3d 1087, 1113 (10th Cir.1996) (finding that Morgan only requires questioning during voir dire regarding whether jurors would automatically impose the death penalty, and it does not require specific questioning regarding mitigating factors), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1213, 117 S.Ct. 1699, 137 L.Ed.2d 825 (1997); Louisiana v. Ball, 824 So.2d 1089, 1110 (La.2002) (“[V]oir dire does not encompass unlimited inquiry by defendant into all possible prejudices of prospective jurors, including their opinions on evidence, or its weight, hypothetical questions, or questions of law that call for any prejudgment of supposed facts in the case. Louisiana law clearly establishes that a party interviewing a prospective juror