Document: 448 U.S. 38 100 S.Ct. 2521 65 L.Ed.2d 581 Randall Dale ADAMS, Petitioner,v.State of TEXAS. No. 79-5175. Argued March 24, 1980. Decided June 25, Syllabus Trials for capital offenses in Texas are conducted two phases. First, the jury considers question defendant's guilt or innocence. If finds defendant guilty, trial court holds a separate sentencing proceeding at which additional evidence mitigation aggravation is admissible. The then required by statute to answer three specific questions concerning (1) whether conduct causing death issue was deliberate, (2) future would constitute continuing threat society, and (3) his killing victim unreasonable response victim's provocation, if any. answers "Yes" each these questions, must impose sentence, but "No" any imposes life sentence. At petitioner's murder trial, judge, pursuant (§ 12.31(b)), excluded from number prospective jurors who were unwilling unable take an oath that mandatory penalty imprisonment not "affect [their] deliberations on fact." selected convicted petitioner answered statutory affirmative punishment phase, thus sentence be imposed. On appeal, Court Criminal Appeals rejected contention had been violation Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 510, 88 1770, 20 776, wherein it held State may constitutionally execute imposed culled all those revealed during voir dire examination they conscientious scruples against otherwise opposed punishment. Held: Section 12.31(b) applied this case exclude contravention Sixth Fourteenth Amendments as construed Witherspoon, supra. Pp. 43-51. (a) general proposition established related cases juror challenged cause based views about unless prevent substantially impair performance duties accordance with instructions oath, applicable bifurcated procedure employed cases. obey follow law, he willing only accept certain circumstances acceptable also without conscious distortion bias. 43-47. (b) § coexist independent bases excluding so permit exclusion under grounds broader than permitted Witherspoon. Although could, consistently use whose such make them law their oaths, opinions impermissible. appearance neutrality created theoretical availability defense challenge favor sufficiently substantial out Witherspoon's ambit. 47-49. (c) As here, touchstone inquiry putative could posited honestly believed warranted beyond reasonable doubt, rather fact imposition automatically have effect jurors' duties. Such test did, fault responsibilities special seriousness acknowledge might affected. It does appear individuals irrevocably frustrate State's legitimate efforts administer its valid scheme. Accordingly, Constitution disentitles excluded. 49-51. Tex.Cr.App., 577 S.W.2d 717, reversed. Melvyn Carson Bruder, Dallas, Tex., petitioner. Douglas M. Becker, Austin, respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 This presents contravened 776 (1968), when members venire service because We hold there exclusions inconsistent we therefore reverse 2 * two-phase proceeding. See Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 37.071 (Vernon Supp.1979). In first guilty offense, wide range following adduced either phase trial: 3 "(1) caused deceased committed deliberately expectation another result; 4 "(2) probability commit criminal acts violence society; 5 "(3) raised evidence, any, deceased." 37.071(b). 6 doubt "Yes," death. "No," imprisonment. Arts. 37.071(c), (e). 7 charged offense murdering peace officer.1 During individual jurors, prosecutor, sometimes intensively inquired attitudes set forth Tex.Penal Code Ann. (1974). provides follows: 8 "Prospective shall informed conviction felony. A disqualified serving states will affect 9 Typically, advised seeking asked state subject, explored considerable depth. He detail used cases, including particular result judge's imposing Finally, 12.31(b), fact. submission over objections, judge excused oath. 10 affirmatively 37.071(e). argued Court's decision authority previous "consistently scheme selection Texas, application [§ 12.31(b)] issues, comports constitutional requirements Witherspoon." 728 (1979). granted petition writ certiorari, 444 990, 519, 62 419 (1979), limited questions: 11 Is doctrine cases? so, did present Penal violate supra ?"2 II A. 12 involved selecting where complete discretion should context, no interest broad-based rule exclusion, since "[a] man opposes penalty, less one favors it, can discretionary judgment entrusted him . takes juror." U.S., S.Ct., 1775. defendant, other hand, seriously prejudiced practice. sentenced fell "woefully short impartiality entitled" punishment, id., 518, By "crossed line neutrality" "produced uncommonly condemn die." Id., 520, 521, 1776. 13 recognized well power more narrowly drawn: 14 "[N]othing say today bears upon veniremen made unmistakably clear vote regard developed before them, attitude toward making impartial guilt." 522-523, n. 21, 1777 (emphasis original). 15 statement seems clearly designed accommodate obtaining oaths. For example, guilt. Similarly, Illinois time decided least consider although accorded absolute it. wholly even matter what facts given case, assessing 16 Boulden Holman, 394 478, 483-484, 89 1138, 1141, 22 433 (1969), again emphasized able law: 17 "[I]t entirely possible person has 'fixed against' 'believe in' nevertheless perfectly abide existing law—to conscientiously structions fairly case." 18 And Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 595-596, 98 2954, 2960, 57 973 (1978), upheld several respond question: 19 "[D]o you feel truely [sic ] try your strong cannot knowing possibility exists punishment?" establishes insist, however, decide impartially apply court. B 21 little difficulty concluding applies cases.3 differs principal ways: assessed same rendered verdict, whereas subsequent proceeding; unfettered not, circumscribed requirement questions; directly juries merely give turn determine pronounced judge. Because differences, plays somewhat role Illinois. excludes address degree impartiality. Nevertheless, presented convinces put affirmative. doing both aggravating mitigating circumstances, appearing innocence proceedings. Jurors characteristically know automatic Hovila State, 532 293, 294 (Tex.Crim.App.1975), informed. essence, allowed "on basis relevant why imposed, imposed." Jurek 428 262, 271, 96 2950, 2956, 49 929 (1976) (opinion STEWART, POWELL STEVENS, JJ.). process exact science, unavoidably exercise while remaining true 23 With considerations mind, apparent juror's influence manner performs exceeding "guided discretion," S.W.2d, 730, law. Exclusions like exclusions, examined light.4 C 24 urges consistent Brief Respondent 48. position some proper 12.31(b). argument holdings decisions considered relationship between 12.31(b).5 is, unpersuasive. 25 initial matter, peradventure ground challenging juror. limitation exclude: barred "any basis" inability carried out. 522, 1777, 21. While point seem too obvious bear repetition, frequent references "disqualifying" jurors6 Appeals, fallen into error assuming conflict thatWitherspoon not. 26 Nor do agree different origin purpose lead forbidden Unlike having nothing personal bias, ill health, financial hardship, peremptory challenges, focuses beliefs hence falls within scope doctrine. But 12.31 27 "neutral" respect section issues. Despite hypothetical existence believes literally Biblical admonition "an eye eye," see supra, 536, 1784 (Black, J., dissenting), undeniable, dispute, few indeed compared ambit III 28 Based our own record, concluded impermissible doubt. Rather, stated "affected" apparently meant potentially lethal consequences invest greater gravity involve emotionally.7 Others positively way "affected."8 neither nervousness, emotional involvement, nor deny confirm whatsoever equivalent unwillingness part court's regardless feelings penalty. consequently insufficient Amendments. view aver find convinced otherwise, yet frankly concede prospects honest deem assessments judgments inherent system, slightest affected prospect deprive she entitled 29 repeat bar ignore record us 30 reversed extent sustains 31 So ordered. 32 THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs judgment. 33 BRENNAN, concurring. 34 I join opinion, continue believe contrary Eighth Amendment's prohibition cruel unusual punishments. Gregg Georgia, 153, 227, 2909, 859 (BRENNAN, dissenting). 35 MARSHALL, concurring 36 prohibited Furman 408 238, 314-374, 92 2726, 2764-2796, 346 (1972) (MARSHALL, concurring); 231-241, 2973-2977, dissenting); Godfrey 446 420, 437-440, 1759, 1769-1771, 64 398 (1980) judgment). addition, violated (1968). assumption ever violating command Amendment "cruel punishments" Cf. Beck Alabama, 447 625, 646, 2382, 2393, 392 37 REHNQUIST, dissenting. that, excuse considering persons swear executed Thus, re-examining doctrinal underpinnings light intervening instead expands precedent remained static benefit expansion holding. myself constrained dissent. 39 decided, many States, gave unbridled words itself, "the empowered 'yes' 'no' fit live." 20, 1776, 20. feature capital-sentencing consideration perhaps single most important factor ultimate decision: 40 "[I]n broad penalty" play inevitable decision. 41 "A men perform task demanded Guided standard, 'free select reject [sees] fit,' choose more—and less—than express conscience community death." 1775 original; footnote omitted). 42 However feels constitutionality qualms jury, admit conditions formed predicate longer exist. Our recent leave slightly McGautha California, 402 183, 91 1454, 711 (1971), solely untrammeled jury. (1972); (1976); Proffitt Florida, 242, 913 Roberts Louisiana, 325, 3001, 974 (1976). 43 presently force requires affirmative: 44 45 46 37.071(b) 47 inquiries negative, 48 hard imagine system leaves hands allowing case—that assigned all. upholding announcing stressed "guides jury's objective particularized offender 274, 2957 added). Given mandate submitted, reason require cumulative consequences. holding recognize fundamentally dismisses difference "is science" oaths." Ante, 46. suggest observations determination determination, "unscientific" determinations good deal bounds her fact, plausible distinction guilt/innocence role, defined phase. No suggest, declined 523, ("Nor today's render invalid conviction, case"). 50 dissent Black pointed much right 535, 1784. observed being "too soft" someone hard." wrote, "I dream foisting admitted religious inflicting (a claims, adheres 'an eye')." excusal reasons. To dismiss possibility, "such indeed," ante, 49, engage unsupportable speculation, miss Black's argument. statistical parity, logical consistency. 51 Like read casting Tex. Hughes 563 (1978); Freeman 556 287 (1977); Burns 270 Boulware 542 677 affirm below. Under 19.03(a)(1) (1974), whoever "murders officer fireman acting lawful discharge official duty knows fireman" authorizes four offenses: course kidnaping, burglary, robbery, forcible rape, arson; remuneration; escaping attempting escape penal institution; prison employee inmate. 19.03. current scheme, 19.03, small class aggravated crimes, Supp.1979), mandates if, questions. adopted Branch together (1972), struck down giving revised Estelle, 592 F.2d 1297 panel Fifth Circuit found (1974) en banc rehearing banc. 598 1016 oral January 8, 1980, issued Davis 429 122, 97 399, 339 (1976), arising similar respects system. Petitioner amicus conclusively applicability case. treat foreclosed, explicitly Even concedes "applies" 36-48. suggests questionable "logic," agrees experience demonstrate applicability. "alive well" State. E. g., Woodkins 855, 862 cert. denied, 431 960, 2688, 53 279 270, 275, 434 935, 422, 54 Brock 309, 312, 1002, 647, 498 Whitmore 570 889, 893 Moore 664, 672 949, 2666, 266 862; Shippy 246, 251, 275-276; 287, 297-298 (1977), 1088, 1284, 55 794 313; 562 857, 859-861, 439 903, 99 268, 58 250 581, 583 440 950, 1432, 59 640 (1979); Bodde 568 344, 348-349 968, 1520, 784 893; Garcia 168, 174-175 pending, 79-5464; Burks 389, 393-394 79-5533. 34, 42, 48; 672; 860; 586; Chambers 313, 320 928, 1264, 484 348; 175. Prospective Mahon, Jenson, Ferguson category. Jenson said examination: "Well, think probably [affect my deliberations] afterall ], you're talking man's here. You definitely don't want lightly." Tr. Voir Dire 367. Coyle, White, McDonald, Riddle ground.

Category: 0