Document: 528 U.S. 304120 S.Ct. 774145 L.Ed.2d 792 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.UNITED STATES, PETITIONERv.ABEL MARTINEZ-SALAZAR No. 98 1255. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued November 29, 1999 Decided January 19, 2000 Syllabus Respondent Martinez-Salazar and a codefendant were charged with variety federal offenses. As Federal Rules Criminal Procedure instruct, District allotted them 10 peremptory challenges exercisable jointly selection 12 jurors, Rule 24(b), another such challenge an alternate juror, 24(c). Because prospective juror Don Gilbert indicated several times he would favor prosecution, codefendants challenged him for cause, but declined excuse him. After twice objecting, unsuccessfully, for-cause ruling, used remove Gilbert. The subsequently exhausted all their challenges. At close jury selection, read names jurors seated asked if prosecutor defense counsel had objections those jurors. Martinez-Salazar's responded: "None from us." conclusion trial, was convicted on counts. On appeal, Ninth Circuit agreed (and Government here does not contest) Court's refusal strike cause abuse discretion. error, held, did violate Sixth Amendment, because removed impartiality eventually challenged. But Appeals further concluded mistake resulted violation Fifth Amendment due process rights it forced use curatively, thereby impairing his right full complement which law entitled Such requires automatic reversal. Held: A defendant's exercise pursuant 24 denied impaired when defendant chooses who should have been excused cause. Pp. 5 12. (a) Although plays important role reinforcing constitutional trial by impartial jury, see, e.g., Swain v. Alabama, 380 202, 212 213, 218 219, this has long recognized auxiliary; unlike guaranteed dimension, Ross Oklahoma, 487 81, 88. Peremptory criminal trials governed Procedure. 24(b) prescribes, inter alia, offenses "punishable imprisonment more than one year, defendants [are] [entitled] challenges." 24(c) provides when, as case, selected, each side selecting juror. question turns whether provides. 7. (b) dealt state-law resembling presented here. first rejected position that, without more, loss constitutes jury. U.S., at So sits impartial, fact achieve result mean violated. Ibid. then objection cure court's error denying arbitrarily deprived allowed under Oklahoma law. Id., 89. An statute accorded nine courts into grant requirement disagreed ruling must, preserve claim fair Even then, state law, grounds reversal only challenges, incompetent therefore upon Ross, concluded, lose cause; rather, received him, Constitution guaranteed. 90 91. 7 8. (c) rejects Government's contention like considered require trial. sanctioned various limitations could viewed effectively reducing number available defendant, Stilson 250 583, 586, these cases address procedures exercised. None demands refrain using particular basis set facts present. To date substantive control over choice whom peremptorily. Under Equal Protection Clause, potential solely juror's gender, ethnic origin, race. See, Batson Kentucky, 476 79. declines 24, otherwise impose, advanced Government. 8 9. (d) However, agrees narrower violated case. erred concluding compelled peremptorily, allotment one. hard same no choice. exercised 11 That Rule. objecting denial challenge, option letting sit petit and, conviction, pursuing appeal. Instead, elected In choosing rather taking chances challenge. Rather, line principal reason peremptories: help secure guarantee J. E. B. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 127, 137, n. Moreover, immediate confronted comports reality process. Challenges rulings fast paced, spot pressure. Counsel well court must prepared promptly decide, often between shades gray. 9 11. (e) exact allowed; cannot tenably assert right. See P. 146 F.3d 653, reversed. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT Ginsburg, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Thomas, Breyer, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion. Scalia, judgment, Kennedy, Opinion Justice Ginsburg Court. 1 81 (1988), reaffirmed "peremptory [to jurors] dimension," id., 88; they means constitutionally required end We case problem left open Ross. 91, 4. focus sequence events: erroneous judge dismiss followed Confronting events, ruled Due Process Clause conviction whenever exhaust during selection. 653 (1998). 2 reverse Circuit's judgment. reject obliged judge's error. hold, however, elects exercising biased sat, rule-based 3 * Abel tried Arizona narcotics weapons instructs, also additional Fed. Crim. Proc. 4 Prior gave written questionnaire complete. F.3d, 654 655. Gilbert, prosecution. discussion judge, restated: "[A]ll things being equal, I probably tend prosecution." explained burden proving person guilty rests said disagree proposition. next whether, facing backgrounds opinions similar own, thought get answered: "I think that's difficult question. don't know answer that." inquired feel comfortable erring prosecution defense. favorable suppose most people are. mean, they're predisposed. You assume something wrong." told response "contrary our whole system justice. When accused crime, there's presumption . guil[t]. way." replied, understand theory." completion colloquy, opposed stating: "You about opinions. He follow instructions, 'I what do,' et cetera. you reasons him[,] choose do 6 request (a expressly permits district there multiple defendants). Tr. Oral Arg. 34 35. out App. 182. contended abused its discretion refusing 656. 657. rights. According Circuit, 659. Judge Rymer dissented part. She observed nothing text suggests uses 659 660. Martinez-Salazar, she emphasized, never asserted wished some nor finally composed. Assuming, arguendo, "would engraft [onto Clause] common remedy per se violation." 661. decision "[c]onstitutionalizing impairment challenges," underscored, ran counter hardly "inconsequential" view "[t]rial courts, federal, rule minute." 659, appeals divided peremptorily erroneously refused thereafter exhausts First Circuits agreement circumstance abridgment Cambara, 902 F.2d 144, 147 148 (CA1 1990); Hall, 152 381, 408 (CA5 1998). Tenth Eleventh Circuits, hand, found situation Brooks, 161 1240, 1245 1246 (CA10 1998); Farmer, 923 1557, 1566 (CA11 1991).1 granted certiorari, 527 __ (1999), now II part common-law heritage. Its felony already venerable Blackstone's time. W. Blackstone, Commentaries 346 348 (1769). 219 (1965); Pointer 151 396, (1894). we recognized, well, dimension. see 586 (1919) ("There Congress challenges."). Legislative provision dates 1790. Act Apr. 30, 1790, ch. 9, §30, Stat. 119. Since 1946, provided governing instructions. Rule, reproduced entirety below,2 prescribes government 24(b). multiple-defendant "may allow permit separately jointly." impanelled; turn III Our recent point Oklahoma. 1988 here, although issue arose setting. rejected, rightly review, "the jury." "So impartial," violated." took up objection. argued "arbitrarily depriv[ed] law." "a disagrees juror." [was] exhaust[ed] him." conferred guaranteed, 13 Underlying holding notion "forced" objectionable venire member. Starting premise, reasoned initial provided. "due refusal." 658. 14 urges us judgment ground Brief 19 22. support position, points defendant. Reply (citing Stilson, (sharing peremptories among codefendants); St. Clair 154 134, (1894) (requirement parties waive selected random qualified); Pointer, 409, 412 (simultaneous strikes)). relies 127 (1994) (gender); Hernandez New York, 500 352 (1991) (ethnic origin); 79 (1986) (race). decline 15 agree, 3. together codefendant, (10 juror). 16 want choice.3 demand curatively. 17 (purpose " 'is litigants assist trier fact' ") (quoting Edmonson Leesville Concrete Co., 614, 620 (1991)); Georgia McCollum, 505 42, 57 (1992) (peremptory "one state-created trial"); Frazier 335 497, (1948) ("the challenges] given aid party's interest jury"). stand effect instantaneous them, observed, supra, 4, court, setting, gray, "by 18 conclusion, note involve. It deliberately misapplied force correct 5. Accordingly, warrant Nor seating dismissed 85 ("Had [the juror] sat ultimately sentenced petitioner death, properly preserved failure sentence overturned."); Parker Gladden, 385 363, 366 (1966) "entitled 12, even 10, unprejudiced jurors").4 20 today hold precisely provided; For stated, Reversed. NOTES: There corresponding conflict civil cases. Compare Kirk Raymark Industries, Inc., 61 147, 157 (CA3 1995) (right party exercises cause), Getter Wal-Mart Stores, 66 1119, 1122 1123 (no impairment). 24. Trial Jurors. "(a) Examination. attorney conduct examination itself examination. latter event shall supplement inquiry deems proper submit questions attorneys proper. "(b) Challenges. If offense punishable year fine both, jointly. "(c) Alternate direct addition regular called impanelled replace who, prior time retires consider verdict, become unable disqualified perform duties. drawn manner, qualifications, take oath functions, powers, facilities privileges discharged after verdict. Each impanelled, impanelled. against only, rules less hard, course, if, Scalia hypothesizes, "defendant plenty left." post, 2. Relying language 202 (1965), below, adopt certain substantially impaired. 29 Swain, 'denial reversible showing prejudice' ")). find impairment, decide appropriate substantial be. note, oft-quoted unnecessary founded series early decided adoption harmless-error review. 21 concurring. 22 concur write suggest present refuse afford beyond maximum allowed, shows noncurative purposes show ask make-up object sat. simply 23 Kennedy joins, agree analysis us: entitled. voluntarily chose expend venireman stricken makes difference. 25 join unnecessarily pronounces respondent expended able complain ante, ("Martinez-Salazar appeal"). us. 26 am far certain, moreover, suggested resolution correct. easy enough "to 24," veniremen question, peremptory, normal principles waiver (not say fundamental principle volenti non fit injuria) disable appeal entirely prevent. overturn where, extreme example, instead placed registered whose presence believed nullify conviction. 27 juror-bias clear cut, regarded very enable judicial point. Indeed, earlier years, Bessette Conkey 194 324, 336 (1904) so peremptories, corrected all. certainly me institution exempted original purpose, giving (in effect) 28 hence authoritatively resolved), leave unaddressed.

Category: 0