After several weeks of large mailings, this mailing is relatively brief.  No capital decision reported this week.  The Seventh Circuit database remains outdated and down.

In depth this week analyzes jury selection in capital cases.
 
 
 

 
VI. JURY SELECTION

The Court has considered a series of cases addressing the question of juror bias in capital cases and the defendant's right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. These cases have focused either on jurors' attitudes toward the death penalty -- i.e. whether they are strongly opposed or in favor of the death penalty -- or racial bias. In deciding these cases, the Court has tried to give guidance with regard to the appropriate scope of voir dire.
 
 

A. Death-Qualified Jurors

In Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968), the Court held "that a sentence of death cannot be imposed or recommended 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." Id. at 522. The Court observed that even someone opposed to the death penalty "can make the discretionary judgment entrusted to him by the State and can thus obey the oath." Id. at 519. A state, however, may exclude those jurors who would automatically vote against the death penalty or those jurors whose attitudes about the death penalty would affect their decision regarding the defendant's guilt. Id. at 522, n.21.

Later, the Court made clear that Witherspoon did not hold that the state could exclude only those jurors who would automatically vote against capital punishment. In Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985), the Court held that the standard for excluding a juror because of his views in opposition to the death penalty is "whether the juror's views would 'prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.'" Id. at 424 (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 (1980)). The Court treated the question of jurors beliefs with regard to the death penalty as simply a routine inquiry into juror bias governed by Sixth Amendment standards applicable to all cases rather than the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 423.

The Court also noted that trial judges have historically been charged with determining whether a prospective juror harbors any bias. Id. at 428. If the trial judge, who is best placed to evaluate a juror's credibility, receives the impression that the juror would be unable to follow the law, the judge can remove the juror for cause. Id. at 425-26.22
 
 

B. Reverse-Witherspoon

Just as the state may excuse for cause those jurors whose beliefs against the death penalty would substantially impair their performance of their duties as jurors, a defendant may excuse for cause those jurors whose beliefs in favor of capital punishment would lead them to ignore the court's instructions, not to consider mitigating circumstances, and to vote for the death penalty in every case. Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 729 (1992). This violates "the requirement of impartiality embodied in the Due Process Clause." Id.

If the defendant has the right to excuse for cause jurors who hold such views, and because the defendant must demonstrate that the juror lacks impartiality, voir dire must be adequate to uncover such bias. Id., 504 U.S. at 733-34.23 It is not enough simply to ask the jurors if they could be fair and follow the law. Id., 504 U.S. at 734-36. The defendant must be able to ascertain whether the prospective jurors find mitigating evidence irrelevant or even not worth their consideration. Id., 504 U.S. at 735.

C. Racial Bias

In Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (1986), the Court held that a capital defendant is entitled to voir dire on the question of racial bias. "Because of the range of discretion entrusted to a jury in a capital sentencing hearing, there is a unique opportunity for racial prejudice to operate but remain undetected." Id. at 35. Thus, unless adequate voir dire is conducted, beliefs that blacks are more violence prone or morally inferior could influence how a juror views and weighs aggravating factors. Id. Racist beliefs could also cloud a juror's view of evidence in mitigation. Id. Without adequate voir dire, there is an unacceptable risk "of improper sentencing in a capital case." Id. at 37. The Court, however, stressed that its holding was limited to cases in which the state was seeking the death penalty. In addition, the Court held only that Turner was entitled to a new sentencing phase, not a new trial on guilt-or-innocence. Id.
 
 

A discussion list for legal professional doing capital litigation is in the beginning stages.  The hope of the new list is to get some cross-pollination of ideas, as well as to give  those practitioner's who may not be at a public defender's office or similar non-profit a forum to seek advice and bounce ideas around. The list is private, and moderated only to try to weed out prosecutors and law enforcement.
Post message: capitaldefense@onelist.com
Subscribe:   capitaldefense-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe:   capitaldefense-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner:   capitaldefense-owner@onelist.com
 
 

DISCLAIMER & CREDITS --   Anti-copyrite 1999.   ISSN: 1523-6684. Written  with  the legal professional in mind.  Use does not constitute creation of an attorney-client relationship.  If you have a legal question contact a lawyer authorized to practice in your state. This weekly  has been prepared for educational and information purposes only. Since the content contains general information only, it may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The content does not provide legal advice or legal opinions on any specific matters. The law changes quickly, and information provided may be outdate by the time it is read.   Complete disclaimer located at  http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/disclaimer.html. This letter may be freely redistributed with attribution.  CDW is in no way affiliated with, endorsed by, or supported by the AOC or capdefnet.org.

Please note that the current set up of the weekly is a one way list.  Subscription information, including all names and addresses are private and unavailable to third parties. As always, this newsletter was put together, flying by the seat of my pants, late at night, and only reviewed while under the influence of a caffeine induced stupor, or put another way, please excuse any creative use of the mother tongue.

Please note all rights to terminate a subscription are retained by the editorial staff.

Publisher information: All  comments, inquiries or complaints  may be sent to: Capital Defense Weekly/Karl R. Keys/167 Milk Street/Suite 127/Boston, MA 02109/capdefense@capitaldefenseweekly.com/617.249.0219

ISSN: 1523-6684   Volume III, issue 4