Document: 127 S. Ct. 2218 (2007) Jeffrey UTTECHT, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary, Petitioner, v. Cal Coburn BROWN. No. 06-413. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 17, 2007. Decided June 4, *2221 John J. Samson, for petitioner. Michael R. Dreebem, States as amicus curiae, by special leave the Court, supporting Suzanne Lee Elliott, appointed this respondent. Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, William Berggren Collins, Jay D. Geck, Deputy Solicitor Paul Weisser, Senior Counsel, Counsel Record, Assistant Olympia, WA, Petitioner. Gilbert H. Levy, Seattle, Washington, Justice KENNEDY delivered opinion Court. Respondent Brown robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered one woman in Washington. Two days later, he attempted to murder a second California. Apprehended, confessed these crimes pleaded guilty California offenses, which received sentence life imprisonment. The however, sought death penalty brought trial. Based on jury's verdicts guilt sentencing phases trial, was sentenced death. His conviction were affirmed Brown, 132 Wash.2d 529, 940 P.2d 546 (1997) (en banc). *2222 filed petition writ habeas corpus District Western denied petition, App. Pet. Cert. 77a-79a, 91a, but Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed. Lambert, 451 F.3d 946 (2006). considered, among other arguments setting aside capital sentence, contention that under Witherspoon Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 1770, 20 L. Ed. 2d 776 (1968), its progeny, state trial court had violated Brown's Sixth Fourteenth Amendment rights excusing three potential jurors whom we refer Jurors X, Y, Z cause. moved excuse jurors due concern they could not be impartial deciding whether impose sentence. held it proper X agreed with defense unconstitutional Juror Z On premise stand, requiring receive new more than decade after his conviction. We granted certiorari, 549 ___, 1055, 166 797 (2007), reverse judgment Appeals. I When considering controlling precedents, is final word, necessary starting point. During voir dire preceded Witherspoon's prosecution succeeded removing substantial number based their general scruples against inflicting penalty. challenged, excused cause, 47 members 96-person venire, without significant examination individual prospective jurors. U.S., at 514-515, 1770; see also Brief Petitioner O.T.1967, 1015, p. 4. systematic removal those venire opposed led jury "uncommonly willing condemn man die," 521, thus "woefully short impartiality petitioner entitled Amendments," id., 518, 1770. Because "[a] who opposes penalty, no less favors it, can make discretionary entrusted him State," 519, "a cannot carried out if imposed or recommended chosen excluding veniremen cause simply because voiced objections penalty," 522, set forth, dicta footnote, strict standard when an member may removed account her views Id., 522-523, n. 21, In Wainwright Witt, 469 412, 105 844, 83 841 (1985), explained "Witherspoon best understood context facts." 418, 844. noted half venireevery juror conscientious punishments. 416, Furthermore, scheme permitted "unlimited discretion choice sentence." 421, given unlimited discretion, explained, all she must do follow instructions consider even end would able *2223 it. Ibid. Rejecting found footnote recognized diminished now State's interest administering punishment called different standard. relied Adams Texas, 448 38, 45, 100 2521, 65 581 (1980), provided following standard: "[W]hether juror's prevent substantially impair performance duties accordance oath." 424, 844 (internal quotation marks omitted). Witt instructed that, applying standard, reviewing courts are accord deference court. Deference owed regardless engages explicit analysis regarding impairment; granting motion constitutes implicit finding bias. 430, "whether biased ... upon determinations demeanor credibility peculiarly within judge's province. Such [are] direct review; respect paid such findings proceeding certainly should less." 428, marks, brackets And upheld absence clear statements from impaired "many asked enough questions reach point where bias has been made `unmistakably clear'; know how will react faced imposing unable articulate, wish hide true feelings." 424-425, Thus, there ambiguity statements, "the court, aided undoubtedly [is] assessment [the venireman's] demeanor, resolve favor State." 434, rule reinforced Darden Wainwright, 477 168, 106 2464, 91 144 (1986). There, challenged juror, objected removal. Without further questioning excused. 178, 2464. argued transcript did show critical answer ambiguous. rejected argument. "[O]ur inquiry does mechanical recitation single question answer." 176, Even "[t]he precise wording venireman], gave, themselves compel conclusion any circumstance recommend need defer remains so much turn demeanor. objection, court's decision engage prior jurors, supported impaired. Gray Mississippi, 481 648, 107 2045, 95 622 (1987), addressed once case involving excusal rather exclusion. lodged for-cause peremptory challenges every "expressed degree uncertainty ability cast vote" 652, quickly exhausted 12 challenges, *2224 653, 2045. then expressed opposition said many times return challenge. 654-655, Arguing erroneously certain earlier forced waste reopen previous challenges. refused so, current over objection defense. 655, appeal judges either majority appropriate, circumstances, treat challenge strike. 656-657, This reversed, holding 659, error subject harmlessness review, stand. represents rare case, typical situation state-court Gray, opposite, makes precedent limited significance instant case. These precedents establish least four principles relevance here. First, criminal defendant right drawn tilted selective prosecutorial Witherspoon, Second, strong having apply framework law prescribes. Third, balance interests, state-law cause; impaired, impermissible. Fourth, determining vindicate violating defendant's right, part courts. 424-434, appropriate position assess individuals compose factor importance assessing attitude qualifications 844; Darden, supra, Leading treatises area nonverbal communication. See, e.g., V. Starr & McCormick, Jury Selection 389-523 (3d ed.2001); Frederick, Mastering Voir Dire 39-56 (2d ed.2005). requirements Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, course, provide additional, binding, directions deference. provisions statute create independent, high met before federal issue rulings. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1)-(2); Williams Taylor, 529 362, 413, 120 1495, 146 389 (2000). By according required deference, failed role relief prescribed Congress our cases. *2225 II A instructive entire Spanning two weeks, process entailed numerous After third day dire, during few questioned, "have go little bit faster." Tr. 1398. next day, reiterated concern, told take six weeks order conflict Christmas holidays. 1426. Eleven devoted qualified. phase alone, 18 Despite State, 11 As counsel seven times; only twice Before contested challenge, gave each side chance explain recall additional questioning. issuing decisions careful measured explanations. 2601-2604 (denying defense); 97-100 (granting despite defense). Z, demonstrated some confusion. argument both counsel, open parties felt clarified: "I thought first you wanting [this juror] since seemed kind confused sides, really question, let me don't have hesitation about bringing here up." 26. Consistent efficient counsel: "Let something sides. If going agree shortcut what happens here." Setting disputed circumstances Z's removal, refrained objecting understand burden proof. 1457, 1912, 2261, 2940. For vigorous and, seems, persuasive. jurors' equivocal reflected thinking responsibility, impairment. 1791, 2111, 2815. tenacity when, long overruled writing returned rehabilitation. 3151-3154. parties. 3154. own defending them objections, argued, contrary takes rely bare promises obey law. 1713-1714, 1960-1961, 2772-2773, 3014-3016. With regard argued: *2226 "Any time law, always indicate will. But look view[s] oath juror." 1960-1961. instances appears prevailed final, history instruction concerning options oral examination, distributed questionnaire asking attitudes toward distributing questionnaire, structure It described function: "[I]f Mr. crime aggravating reconvened phase. hear evidence [and] imposed. You retire determine imprisonment possibility parole. "In making determination question: Having mind guilty, convinced beyond reasonable doubt sufficient mitigating merit leniency? unanimously answered yes death.... [Otherwise] release parole." 1089-1090. questionnaires filled out, handbooks greater depth. Small groups questioned. group began, convicted, "there penalties return, prison literally means exactly 2016. background, examination. B examined seventh fifth death-qualification argues outlook specific appropriate. reveals preceding information, serious misunderstandings responsibility prevented returning facts Under procedures, alternated commencing went first. infliction. fact, soon "believe[d] *2227 severe situations." 58. He elaborated, think never happen, happen 10 week either." 63. "[T]here appropriate." turned so. example actually came wanted die." 59. Defense another example. convicted first-degree murder, released prison, person incorrigible reviolate released." 62. replied lack recidivism frustrate Z. answered, "I'm sure." began noting indicated "in proved shadow killed kill again." 69. proof doubt, understood. "[I]t my very obvious reoffend." 70. response fourth time, being reoffend. wasn't until today became aware parole Washington," 71, although fact judge aggravated murder. asked, "And thing ...?" 71-72. give thought." 72. supplied question. probe "consider" penalty; could, including crimes. longer reoffend, confusing answer: feel way option, option. believe penalty." 72-73. Finally, parole, measure." 73. Over course questioning, stated 62, 70, 72, 73, responses interspersed statements. explaining conditions risk recidivism. 75. ask response, volunteered, "We objection." III years overturned *2228 Court's affirmance ruling to, unreasonable application of, clearly established F.3d, 953. find impaired; event unambiguously reasons, Appeals, Witherspoon-Witt failure object. Each holdings wrong. exposition analysis, fault Y same "finding missing discussion" excusal. 950. therefore applied wrong Z." 953, 10. erroneous summary opinion. portion "Summary Conclusions," held: "The properly exercised [X, Z] dire. Their abide oaths jurors." Wash.2d, 630, P.2d, 598, 599. unclear why overlooked disregarded finding, mistaken faulting completeness Washington's absent identified rule, abuse-of-discretion 601, 584. forth framework, explained: "[Brown] object [Juror At rate, `would released,' correct statement misunderstood corrected later. abuse cause." 604, 585. fair reading quoted language Regardless, requirement appellate particular reference juror. Early Packer, 537 3, 9, 123 154 263 (2002) (per curiam). counts. From review ruling, conclude acted well *2229 answers, face, furthermore, opportunity observe anything fully reflect information Nevertheless, waiver support interested present courtroom rule. 2464 (emphasizing impairment). assurances overcome inference release. require deny itself similar guarantees worth little; instead, listen substance answers. relied, diligent often must, parties' problematic beliefs rise level offered light maintains convince us unreasonable. preserve claim independent prosecution's challenge; procedural rules govern. nevertheless into voluntary acquiescence confirmation failing object, just error. deprived factual helped decision. harm caused case: "When made, opposing grounds facially insufficient needed true. [Defendant] neither. Had [defendant] immediately tried determined facts. timely 30, remedy whatever [defendant's] counsel." 16057-2-III etc., 89 Wash.App. 1033, 1998 WL 75648, *5 (Wash.App., Feb. 24, 1998) (unpublished opinion; citations 959 (Tallman, J., dissenting denial rehearing en Or *2230 basketball referee whose stepbrother police officer, favorable State. 68, 74; 9 (reasoning "defense declined glad get rid all, himself pro-death .... thanked lucky stars prosecutor bumped Z"). attempt introduce realized horrific weak. Although hold jury, harmless, neither defense's inconsequential. volunteered comment especially frequent request removed, saying expedite process. invitation remove reject entitles relief. perceive foreclose record discloses basis where, here, lengthy supervised thoughtful broad discretion. exceeded Z; indeed shows considerable confusion amounting Appeals' misreading opinion, satisfied. That decision, like court's, IV raises contends Oral Arg. 35 ("As admitted [defense counsel] objection.... [they] knew raised appeal"). addition asserts base reoffending, consistent scheme. reasons above assumption suggesting analysis. permits party "except" party's Wash. Rev.Code 4.44.230 (2006), gives bar "any *2231 court" unless "manifest affecting constitutional right," Rule Proc. 2.5(a) 13 Ferguson, Practice: Criminal Practice Procedure § 4908, 432 ed. 2004) ("In general, issues considered appeal. purpose alleged Accordingly, duty call attention . ." (footnotes omitted)). misstated second-guess determination, is, event, court's. say likelihood harming someone while considerations. Rather, sole reason accused reviolate. equivalent treating factor, future dangerousness possible consideration. 10.95.020 (2006) (setting factors); 10.95.070 eight factors). persuaded depart ignore * Capital defendants jury. infringe eliminating duties. Courts claims error, petitions, owe superior neglected remanded proceedings ordered. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT Excerpts Verbatim Report Proceedings (Voir Dire) (Nov. 1993) Cause 91-1-03233-1 (Super. King Cty., Wash.), 57-75: COURT: All right. Z]. (Prospective Juror, Z], entered courtroom.) That's fine, Good afternoon. [JUROR Z]: Do preliminary got afternoon format talking attorneys discuss No, situation. Did nod your head remembering heard before? not. *2232 Okay. We'll start MS. HUPP: Thank you, Honor. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY Q My name Lin-Marie Hupp, I'm attorneys. off feelings want reinforce Judge already job. Can tell case? Not last Monday initial session. read basically that? guess surprised announcement duty. most everybody else goes to. pretty might be, things idea are? situations. good young from, Renton couple boys down Vancouver you're about, die? Does bearing completely again type appropriate? can't put real line lot cases it's people would fill blanks myself that. assuming correct. anyway, prove committed premeditate beforehand. feeling premeditated words, planned penalty? premeditated. *2233 murders eligible proves circumstances. alleging try them. ones committed, rape, robbery, kidnapping done conceal witness eliminate witness. fall class be. Now, sentence? temporarily insane lead normally do, enter Other thanwell, maybe dothe finds somebody circumstance, four, reconvenes One sort sounds like. You're ever papers sometimes they're years. understand. Were parole? plus doubt. options? Yes, could. Could underlying serves, thing? released, that's knowing didn't coming opinions obviously jail matter mean hearing alternative? yes. your, referred also, proven again. Understanding *2234 spend Is frustrated? Are people's phase? sure. fair. frequency use today? used too frequently enough? several recently become prevalent news anyway. either. sure situations, comfortable time? Yes. weren't happy all? unhappy, Let covered already, laid kidnapping, witness, those, deliberately inflicted pain victim died period time. determination. Right. tough tougher you. evidence? understand, after, hideous presumes proof, again, presuming not? So, chart there's almost mirror image innocent see. *2235 far mentioned insane. defines definition broad. reason, justification, crime, MR. MATTHEWS: statement. sustained. (BY HUPP) instruct is. crime. offense, well, wouldn't insanity defense, dealt with Your Honor, am nature up terms mental status person. realize defenses available actual itself, phase, we're way, trying sanction of. sorts come evaluated Understand. To play presented status, consider? How somebody's childhood emotional development? other. And, talk sitting box. things? says situation? (Nodding head). person's opinion? Everybody Another unanimous, *2236 person, people, five life. strips away comfort numbers unanimous accept important yourself? do. questions. Al Matthews. prosecutors questions, perhaps rapidly. step-brother policeman year. discussions comes up? Have occasion family circle? them, remember statement? First handbook imagine? bothers me, means. assure doesn't mean, Knowing still occurred us? the, loss words too, clarification. Well, sir. satisfied standard? law? nothing, absolutely certain? term means *2237 that becomes slightly different. presumed beginning possible, streets contact run before. killing street nil practically difficult vote couldn't again? paroled. say, locked rest life? thought. really, said, hour ago option suddenly, recognize representing election everyone life, things. One, promise anything. first, it? deserve firm on, now? Like waiting happening even, situations measure. getting circumstances? Then *2238 clarify talks further. imposes obviously, interpretation. officiate games. questionnaire. You, college level, fast game calls decide blow whistle call. difference between call? terminology wrote whether, probably watching Perry Mason be positive? positive, you? person? step back juryroom. bailiff minutes. juror? would, stick he's basically, concede kills problems hadn't overcame MULLIGAN: objection. prosecutor's office, ahead STEVENS, justice SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER join, dissenting. Millions Americans oppose cross section virtually community country includes citizens firmly unjust qualified *2239 serve An individual's severest heinous arguably "`prevent oath.'" 420, (1985) (emphasis deleted). Moreover, position, matter, "`may punishment.'" Today ignores well-established principles, choosing instead blindly characterization testimony.[1] unwarranted us. justification elsewhere strike dissent. "confused penalty] recidivism." Ante, 2227. accurate testimony harbored reservations appropriate.[2] "an [or] serves," responded situation" "if 62 added). *2240 alternatives repeatedly confirmed imposition categorically time," affirmative. While justify decided wake suggested view distinction draw sub-classes latter classthose conscientiously necessarily doing so.[3] then-Justice Rehnquist Lockhart McCree, 476 162, 1758, 90 137 (1986): "It cases; law." Today's ago: power exclude juries extend `frustrate legitimate schemes oaths.' 423[, 844]. permit exclusion unnecessarily narrows members. `stack[s] deck execute [such a] deprive law.' 523[, 1770]." 658-659, (1987). accepts conclusory "substantially impaired" examining practice precedents. 2228. AEDPA abdicate judicial fashion. threshold crossed impairment illustrated Powell's *2241 assumed affirmative suffice cause: "`Do moral religious, religious facts?'" ibid. ("The juror], penalty"). previously "`you unwilling advisory recommending though recommendation?'" Our rested squarely mere penalty principlesand inability perform legally contrast, 622, reversed impermissibly struck appeared equivocate, eventually acknowledged "she case." 2045; cf. 73 ("I [impose measure"). distinguishes solely 2223-2224. view, grounded impaired." "ruling" consists one-sentence included "indicated 546, 585 merely constitute striking cause.[4] *2242 alternative, recognizing tenuous "ruling," relies unique taken face value reasoning behind precedents.[5] There nothing suggest tendency "careful explanations" decisions, ante, 2225that dull impact effect, reads defers relying decisions. places great emphasis counsel's characterizing "voluntary of" 2229. closer transcript, appendix interpretation accurate. Upon "no exclusion, serving him.[6] interpret Z," 2229, review.[7]Ante, 2230; 156 709, 719, P.3d 1076, 1081 ("We fails `invades fundamental accused'") (quoting *2243 Becker, 54, 64, 935 1321, 1326 (1997)). recusal, irrelevant ultimate disposition later claimed rife error" claims, 431, 11, motion, strategically sound, doom respondent's claim. Unlike responses, asserted full capability 58 situations"); (responding options, "Yes, could"); 63 appropriate"); 72 otherwise sir"); alternative it] measure"); 438, (STEVENS, concurring judgment) ("Given juror's] somewhat timorous entirely appearance prefer reluctant juror"). generally permissibly instructed. recognizes principle, 2222-2223, yet perverse result considers severity carefully (e.g., "severe situations," 63), imagine, perfectly unequivocal answers unfamiliar legal imaginable circumstance. Cf. 50-51, (1980) repeat service violate oaths. Constitution allow of] responsibilities seriousness acknowledge honestly affected"). Today, fundamentally redefined or misunderstood meaning impaired," gotten horribly backwards. impression encouraging inclusion ensuring cannot. emphasizes *2244 prescribes." 2224. sanction. outcome aimed protect developing apparent temporary lapse, governs today. 658, 2045 (explaining "unnecessarily members" "`stack[s] petitioner'" 523, 1770)). Kozinski's solidly basic dramatically Rehnquist's Lockhart. surely assume changed clerk Chief Burger mention distinction, uphold disqualification harbor slight reservation sanctions. respectfully BREYER, SOUTER joins, join STEVENS' write separately emphasize majority's strongest piece evidencedefense objection" (uttered Z)should meant namely Often waiving effect. 2230-2231 (opinion Court); 2242-2243 dissenting); 719-720, 1080-1081 made. continues statement, proving helping demonstrate "atmospherics," facial expressions vocal hesitations tones voice warrant 2229-2231. little. What suggest treats Rorschach blot, permitting affirm (or reverse) subjective written take. Or, offers backdoor avoid effect wrongly former impossible obtain meaningful silent records. need, stretch ordinary thereby atmospherics undercut) Where lawyer judge) remarks record. Basing conclusions, then, *2245 believe, STEVENS sets (and AEDPA's standard), constitutionally necessary. NOTES [1] opens graphic description startle reader muster Given issue, posture unnecessary. 440, 1, (Brennan, dissenting) ("However Witt's vivid portrait gruesome details deserves die. peers, conformity Amendments"). [2] contrast stronger (juror confirming personal interfere innocence defendant); 7, (discussing dismissed "`follow Court'" "keep life"). 653-654, 5, (1987) (holding "somewhat confused" "could" "`was seated [v. (1980)] criteria'"). [3] leaves task distinguishing impartially who, punishment, adduced trial." [4] extent deemed initially misunderstanding relevant abated "misunderstood case" but, "he later." [5] pre-AEDPA, traditionally misapplication 661, 10, brief owes inappropriate dependent law"). [6] Z[, that] times, oath, 946, (C.A.9 2005); 437, (noting unequivocally "`could bring penalty,'" served remain jury). [7] note Florida "enforced contemporaneous-objection dealing challenges."

Category: 0