How have the courts interpreted voir dire in a murder case where the majority opinion said the law requires a finding of death where aggravation outweighs mitigation?

The attorneys' confusion on this point is evident from several quotations from the jury voir dire which appear in the majority opinion's discussion of an entirely separate issue, the Witherspoon claim (Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776). As the majority opinion indicates, the district attorney told one prospective juror during voir dire "that the law requires a death verdict where aggravation outweighs mitigation, 'even if you personally don't think the crime is worth it ...' " (ante, p. 102 of 250 Cal.Rptr., p. 44 of 758 P.2d), and defense counsel conveyed the same misunderstanding to the same juror, informing her that if a juror weighed the evidence and determined that aggravation outweighed mitigation " 'the law mandates that you come in with a finding of death, no matter what your personal feelings may be.' " (Ibid.)