Opinion ID: 357262
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of Veniremen

Text: 11 Spenkelink contends first that at his trial the exclusion for cause of two veniremen who had conscientious scruples against the death penalty (1) violated the requirements of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments set forth in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), (2) violated his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to trial by an impartial jury, (3) violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to trial by a jury selected from a representative cross-section of the community, and (4) subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 12 During the voir dire examination of the jury, counsel for Spenkelink contemporaneously objected to the exclusion for cause of the two veniremen in question. His counsel did not, however, raise any of these contentions regarding the veniremen's exclusion on direct appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. Additionally, although a court reporter recorded the voir dire testimony, neither Spenkelink nor his trial attorney requested the court reporter to transcribe it, and his trial attorney even expressly excluded the voir dire examination from testimony designated to be transcribed for the appellate record. 12 The Florida Supreme Court on collateral review, Spenkelink v. State, supra, and the district court below, both relying on Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), found that Spenkelink had waived his contentions regarding the exclusion of the two veniremen. 13 In Wainwright v. Sykes, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant who did not contemporaneously object, and whose attorney did not contemporaneously object, during the defendant's state trial to the involuntariness of the defendant's confession waived his objection and could not thereafter raise the issue on federal habeas corpus review. Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, stated: 14 We therefore conclude that Florida procedure did, consistently with the United States Constitution, require that petitioner's confession be challenged at trial or not at all, and thus his failure to timely object to its admission amounted to an independent and adequate state procedural ground which would have prevented direct review here. See Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965). We thus come to the crux of this case. Shall the rule of Francis v. Henderson, supra (425 U.S. 536, 96 S.Ct. 1708, 48 L.Ed.2d 149) barring federal habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice attendant to a state procedural waiver, be applied to a waived objection to the admission of a confession at trial? We answer that question in the affirmative. 15 433 U.S. at 86, 97 S.Ct. at 2506. The Supreme Court made clear that federal habeas corpus review would not be barred if a defendant could show actual prejudice from or cause for his failure to follow the state procedural rule. Id. See Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536, 542, 96 S.Ct. 1708, 1711, 48 L.Ed.2d 149 (1976). As to whether the defendant in Wainwright v. Sykes had shown cause or prejudice, the Court stated that (w)hatever precise content may be given those terms by later cases, we feel confident in holding without further elaboration that they do not exist here. 433 U.S. at 91, 97 S.Ct. at 2508. Compare Sincox v. United States, 5 Cir., 1978, 571 F.2d 876; Jiminez v. Estelle, 5 Cir., 1977, 557 F.2d 506. 16 Whether Spenkelink's procedural default actually falls within the ambit of Wainwright v. Sykes, supra, and, concomitantly, whether sufficient cause or prejudice exists in this case so as not to bar federal habeas corpus review, are difficult questions on which we need not pass. Spenkelink's contentions regarding the exclusion of the two veniremen must fail on their merits as a matter of law for reasons to be discussed; the petitioner thus is not entitled to relief on the basis of these contentions even if Wainwright v. Sykes does not prevent him from raising them. Therefore, we proceed to a consideration of the merits of the contentions themselves.
17 In Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, the Supreme Court held that the jury impartiality to which a criminal defendant is entitled under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments 13 precludes a state from executing a person if the jury that imposed or recommended the death penalty 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. 391 U.S. at 518, 522, 88 S.Ct. at 1775, 1777. It cannot be assumed, the Court stated, that such veniremen will never vote in favor of the death penalty or would not consider doing so in the case from which they were excluded. Consequently, to exclude them for cause results in the selection of a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death. 391 U.S. at 515 n. 9, 521, 88 S.Ct. 1773 n. 9, 1776. Only when a venireman is irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings can he be struck for cause. 391 U.S. at 522-23 n. 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1777 n. 21. The Witherspoon Court more carefully defined its holding through a paragraph in footnote 21 of its opinion: 18 We repeat, however, that nothing we say today bears upon the power of a State to execute a defendant sentenced to death by a jury from which the only veniremen who were in fact excluded for cause were those who made unmistakably clear (1) that they would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial of the case before them, or (2) that their attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant's guilt. Nor does the decision in this case affect the validity of any sentence other than one of death. Nor, finally, does today's holding render invalid the conviction, as opposed to the sentence, in this or any other case. Id. (emphasis in original) 19 The transcript of the voir dire examination of the two excluded veniremen is set forth in Appendix A. A reading of the transcript demonstrates that both veniremen stated unambiguously that they could fairly judge Spenkelink's guilt or innocence. However, both veniremen also made it  unmistakably clear . . . that they would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial of the case before them. Id. In response to the question (W)ould you automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to the evidence?, venireman Ferrell stated, Capital punishment, yes. In response to the same question venireman Colson replied, I would. The record could not be clearer. The veniremen were properly excluded for cause and there was no Witherspoon violation. 14 See, e. g., Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 97 S.Ct. 399, 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976); Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262, 90 S.Ct. 1578, 26 L.Ed.2d 221 (1970); Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478, 89 S.Ct. 1138, 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969); Note, Jury Selection and the Death Penalty: Witherspoon in the Lower Courts, 37 U.Chi.L.Rev. 759, 762-63 (1970).
20 The petitioner's second argument is that even if the two veniremen were properly excluded for cause under Witherspoon from recommending his sentence, their exclusion for cause still violated his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to trial by an impartial jury, because the exclusion of the two veniremen resulted in the selection of a death-qualified jury that was prosecution-prone with respect to the question of guilt or innocence. Spenkelink acknowledges that this contention was submitted to the Supreme Court in Witherspoon and that the Court expressly declined to embrace it, stating: 21 We simply cannot conclude, either on the basis of the record now before us or as a matter of judicial notice, that the exclusion of jurors opposed to capital punishment results in an unrepresentative jury on the issue of guilt or substantially increases the risk of conviction. 22 Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. at 518, 88 S.Ct. at 1774-75. Spenkelink suggests nonetheless that if this Court will remand his case for an additional evidentiary hearing, he will develop a more complete record than the one before the Supreme Court in Witherspoon and prove the contention. 23 The petitioner complains of jury partiality. He alleges that the exclusion for cause of the two veniremen resulted in a death-qualified jury that was prosecution-prone. From this he concludes, by implication, that a nondeath-qualified jury in this case a jury which includes the two excluded veniremen would be impartial with respect to the question of guilt or innocence. This is not necessarily so. When the petitioner asserts that a death-qualified jury is prosecution-prone, he means that a death-qualified jury is more likely to convict than a nondeath-qualified jury. 15 Proof that this proposition is true is far from conclusive, 16 but for the moment we will assume its validity. Even if it is true, the petitioner's contention still must fail. That a death-qualified jury is more likely to convict than a nondeath-qualified jury does not demonstrate which jury is impartial. It indicates only that a death-qualified jury might favor the prosecution and that a nondeath-qualified jury might favor the defendant. The pivotal question, therefore, is which appearance most closely reflects reality. 24 In the instant case a reading of the transcript of the voir dire examination demonstrates that those veniremen who were chosen to be jurors in no way indicated that they were biased for the prosecution or against the defendant. None of the veniremen indicated, for example, that he had a preconceived opinion as to the petitioner's guilt or innocence, compare Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1970, 427 F.2d 921, 924, modified, 408 U.S. 941, 92 S.Ct. 2864, 33 L.Ed.2d 765 (1972), or that he believed it would be his duty in every case to recommend that the trial court sentence a defendant found guilty of first degree murder to capital punishment. Compare Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15, 20-21, 40 S.Ct. 50, 52, 64 L.Ed. 103 (1919); Crawford v. Bounds, 4 Cir., 1968, 395 F.2d 297, 301-04, cert. denied, 397 U.S. 936, 90 S.Ct. 941, 25 L.Ed.2d 117 (1970); United States v. Puff, 2 Cir., 211 F.2d 171, 184, cert. denied, 347 U.S. 963, 74 S.Ct. 713, 98 L.Ed. 1106 (1954). Had a venireman expressed either attitude, he could appropriately be described as prosecution-prone and would properly have been struck for cause. E. g., Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. at 521, 88 S.Ct. at 1776; Fay v. People of State of New York, 332 U.S. 261, 294, 67 S.Ct. 1613, 1630, 91 L.Ed. 2043 (1947); Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 83-87, 62 S.Ct. 457, 471-72, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); Stroud v. United States, supra, 251 U.S. at 20-21, 40 S.Ct. at 52; Williams v. Wainwright, supra, 427 F.2d at 923-24; Crawford v. Bounds, supra, 395 F.2d at 303-04; United States v. Puff, supra, 211 F.2d at 184; Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.330, 3.340. Instead, the veniremen chosen to be jurors indicated only that they had no conscientious scruples against the death penalty and that in a proper case they would recommend capital punishment which, as the Supreme Court made clear in, e. g., Proffitt v. Florida, supra, and Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), is constitutional if administered through a properly drawn statute. In other words, the veniremen indicated only that they would be willing to perform their civic obligation as jurors and obey the law. Such persons cannot accurately be branded prosecution-prone. Consider in this regard the comments of the late Judge Prettyman of the D.C. Circuit:(O)ur own inquiry has brought to our attention another thesis in this area of the law. It is that persons who are not opposed to capital punishment are psychologically inclined against criminals and therefore a jury composed of such persons is not an impartial jury. We understand that this thesis has not as yet received the sanction of any court. We cannot accept it. We examine it because this is a serious case, and if the thesis were tenable it might cause reversal. No proof is available, so far as we know, and we can imagine none, to indicate that, generally speaking, persons not opposed to capital punishment are so bent in their hostility to criminals as to be incapable of rendering impartial verdicts on the law and the evidence in a capital case. Being not opposed to capital punishment is not synonymous with favoring it. Individuals may indeed be so prejudiced in respect to serious crimes that they cannot be impartial arbiters, but that extreme is not indicated by mere lack of opposition to capital punishment. The two antipathies can readily coexist; contrariwise either can exist without the other; and, indeed, neither may exist in a person. It seems clear enough to us that a person or a group of persons may not be opposed to capital punishment and at the same time may have no particular bias against any one criminal or, indeed, against criminals as a class; people, it seems to us, may be completely without a controlling conviction one way or the other on either subject. We think the premise for the thesis has no substance. 25 Tuberville v. United States, supra, 112 U.S.App.D.C. at 409, 303 F.2d at 420-21. See Pope v. United States, 8 Cir., 1967, 372 F.2d 710, 724-25, vacated on other grounds, 392 U.S. 651, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 20 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1968); United States v. Puff, supra, 211 F.2d at 184-85. See also Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. at 520, 88 S.Ct. at 1776; Clarke v. Grimes, 5 Cir., 1967, 374 F.2d 550, 552. 26 The two excluded veniremen, on the other hand, stated that they would automatically vote against imposition of the death penalty regardless of any evidence that might be developed at trial. They also represented that they would fairly judge the petitioner's guilt or innocence. The state trial court, nonetheless, struck them for cause, thus excluding them completely from the trial. We find nothing constitutionally impermissible by a state following such a procedure. Florida apparently has concluded that, if for whatever noble reason religious conviction, philosophical posture, intellectual stance, or some other reason a venireman clings so steadfastly to the belief that capital punishment is wrong that he would never under any circumstances agree to recommend the sentence of death, it is entirely possible perhaps even probable that such a venireman could not fairly judge a defendant's guilt or innocence when a capital felony is charged. Suppose, for example, that the evidence at trial proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and demonstrated, within the meaning of the Florida death penalty statute, that capital punishment could be warranted. A juror who had such deeply-seated conscientious scruples against the death penalty might find himself confronting a grisly choice. If, because of his scruples, he votes to acquit, he must risk hanging the jury. 17 Similarly motivated votes by other jurors in subsequent trials and retrials could, in effect, result in near immunity from crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed, which would frustrate Florida's interest in the just and evenhanded application of its laws, including its death penalty statute. If the juror votes to convict, he must risk betrayal of his principles should the death penalty eventually be imposed. Even under Florida's bifurcated trial procedure in these cases, the situation would be no less problematic. Although the juror could be excused from the jury during the sentencing phase of the trial, during the guilt-determination phase he still would know that a vote to convict could eventually mean the death penalty, a result to which he would have contributed, if only indirectly. His choices as to how to vote on the defendant's guilt or innocence would remain equally troublesome. 27 The right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to trial by a jury guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, 'indifferent' jurors. Irvin v. Dowd, supra, 366 U.S. at 722, 81 S.Ct. at 1642. Accord, e. g., Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2036, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). But the state also enjoys the right to an impartial jury, Williams v. Wainwright, supra, 427 F.2d at 923, and impartiality requires not only freedom from jury bias against the accused and for the prosecution, but freedom from jury bias for the accused and against the prosecution. Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 70-71, 7 S.Ct. 350, 351, 30 L.Ed. 578 (1887). See Comment, 21 Vand.L.Rev. 864, 865 (1968). Florida has reasoned that a person may so cherish his conscientious scruples against the death penalty that he would favor the acquittal of a defendant charged with a capital felony. This is not, of course, necessarily true of all persons who would refuse under any circumstances to recommend death. Some such veniremen might be able to subordinate their personal views to their duty to abide by their oaths as jurors and to obey the law of Florida. Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. at 514 n. 7, 88 S.Ct. at 1773 n. 7, and cases cited therein. Florida, however, has determined that even though a venireman states he can fairly judge guilt or innocence, if he also states that he is irrevocably committed before the trial has begun to vote against the penalty of death, regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge at trial, he must be excluded completely. The state has decided that the parties' right under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to an impartial trial and the state's interest in the just and evenhanded application of its laws, including Florida's death penalty statute, are too fundamental to risk a defendant-prone jury from the inclusion of such veniremen. 18 The Constitution does not prohibit this judgment. See Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 298, 12 S.Ct. 617, 628, 36 L.Ed. 429 (1892); Pope v. United States, supra, 372 F.2d at 724-25; Turberville v. United States, supra, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 407-10, 303 F.2d at 418-21; United States v. Puff, supra, 211 F.2d at 182-86. See also Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. at 520, 88 S.Ct. at 1776. But see Crawford v. Bounds, supra. The jury that emerges after excluding such veniremen, having been carefully examined to exclude also for cause those veniremen who are biased against the defendant, either as to guilt or as to punishment, is impartial. To call it prosecution-prone is to misunderstand the meaning of impartiality. 19 Accordingly, the petitioner's contention is without merit.
28 Spenkelink's third contention is that the exclusion for cause of the two veniremen violated his right under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to trial by a jury selected from a representative cross-section of the community. Similarly, he contends also that the exclusion for cause of the two veniremen violated Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process. For reasons already detailed, the petitioner's contentions must be rejected. 29 In Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975), the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional Louisiana's jury selection process whereby women, who represented 53 per cent of the eligible jurors in the parishes in question, had to register in order to be called for jury duty, a requirement that systematically excluded most eligible women from the jury venire. The Court held that such a jury selection system violated the criminal defendant's right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to trial by a jury selected from a representative cross-section of the community, which is an essential component of the fundamental right under the sixth amendment to trial by a jury in nonpetty criminal cases. 419 U.S. at 525-26, 528, 530-31, 537-38, 95 S.Ct. at 695, 697-98, 701-02. See Duncan v. Louisiana, supra. As justification for its exclusion of women, Louisiana argued that women as a class serve a distinctive role in society as the center of home and family life and that jury service would . . . substantially interfere with that function. 419 U.S. at 533, 534 n. 15, 535 n. 17, 95 S.Ct. at 699 & n. 15, 700 n. 17. To this argument the Court responded: 30 The right to a proper jury cannot be overcome on merely rational grounds. There must be weightier reasons if a distinctive class representing 53% of the eligible jurors is for all practical purposes to be excluded from jury service. No such balance has been tendered here. 20 31 419 U.S. at 534, 95 S.Ct. at 699-700. 32 Assuming for the moment that veniremen who are properly excluded under Witherspoon because they would automatically vote against the death penalty no matter what evidence was proved at trial constitute a distinctive class, cf. Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. at 519-20, 88 S.Ct. at 1775-76, we believe that Florida in the instant case has satisfactorily shown the weightier reasons required by the Supreme Court in Taylor for the exclusion of such veniremen. See generally Ballew v. Georgia, supra; Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972); Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970). As we have already noted, Florida has reached the reasoned determination that the parties' right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to an impartial jury and the state's interest in the just and evenhanded application of its laws, including Florida's death penalty statute, are too fundamental to risk a defendant-prone jury from the inclusion of such veniremen. As the petitioner in his brief concedes, a defendant would be unjustified in objecting, for instance, to the exclusion for cause of a class composed of veniremen who are related to him, even if the veniremen stated they could impartially judge his guilt or innocence, because the chance that such veniremen would be biased in favor of the defendant is too great. Petitioner's Brief at 57. Such danger is no less real when the excluded class is those veniremen properly struck under Witherspoon because of their conscientious scruples against capital punishment. The exclusion of such veniremen, therefore, does not violate the representative cross-section requirement of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. 21 See Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 467-74, 73 S.Ct. 397, 412-16, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953); United States v. Gordon-Nikkar, 5 Cir., 1975, 518 F.2d 972; Pope v. United States, supra, 372 F.2d at 724-25; Turberville v. United States, supra, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 407-10, 303 F.2d at 418-21; United States v. Puff, supra, 211 F.2d at 180-186. Compare Glasser v. United States, supra, 315 U.S. at 83-87, 62 S.Ct. at 471-72; Labat v. Bennett, 5 Cir., 1966, 365 F.2d 698, cert. denied, 386 U.S. 991, 87 S.Ct. 1303, 18 L.Ed.2d 334 (1967).
33 The petitioner's final contention with regard to the exclusion of the two veniremen is that their exclusion for cause resulted in the selection of a jury that was incapable of  'maintain(ing) a link between contemporary community values and the penal system,'  Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 295, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 2987, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.), quoting Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. at 519 n.15, 88 S.Ct. at 1775 n.15, which thus subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 22 Spenkelink points to Woodson, Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 96 S.Ct. 3001, 49 L.Ed.2d 974 (1976), and Gregg v. Georgia, supra, in which the Court held, as it did in Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976), and Proffitt v. Florida, supra, that capital punishment, if imposed through a properly drawn statute by a properly guided sentencing body, does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and contends that the Court in those decisions relied upon the notion that juries' reflections of enduring community attitudes in regard to the propriety of capital punishment would keep infliction of the death penalty in line with the enduring standards of decency which are the measure of the Eighth Amendment. Petitioner's Brief at 58-59. See Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958) (plurality opinion) (The (Eighth) Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.) According to Spenkelink, the exclusion of the two veniremen who were irrevocably against capital punishment under all circumstances resulted in the selection of a jury that did not reflect the full panoply of these enduring community attitudes about capital punishment, a deficiency that allegedly violates the Eighth Amendment's ban against cruel and unusual punishment as interpreted in Woodson, Roberts, and Gregg, as well as in Jurek and Proffitt. This is so, says the petitioner, even if the veniremen were properly excluded under the Witherspoon rationale. 34 We have carefully reviewed the Supreme Court's pronouncements in all five of these decisions and find no support for the petitioner's contention. While the Court in these decisions indicated its approval of properly guided jury participation in the capital punishment sentencing process, see, e. g., Roberts v. Louisiana, supra, 428 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. at 3007 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); Woodson v. North Carolina,supra, 428 U.S. at 302, 96 S.Ct. at 2990 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); Jurek v. Texas, supra, 428 U.S. at 269-75, 96 S.Ct. at 2955-57 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); Proffitt v. Florida,supra, 428 U.S. at 253, 96 S.Ct. at 2966 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. at 188-98, 96 S.Ct. at 2932-36 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.), nowhere in the cited cases did the Court allude to the question of appropriate jury composition in the context of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, much less address the specific contention raised here by the petitioner. In any event, as has already been demonstrated, the jury composition in the instant case was constitutional. Accordingly, the contention is without merit.