Document: 481 U.S. 648 107 S.Ct. 2045 95 L.Ed.2d 622 David Randolph GRAY, Petitionerv.MISSISSIPPI. No. 85-5454. Argued Nov. 12, 1986. Decided May 18, 1987. Syllabus Under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 510, 88 1770, 20 776, and its progeny, the right to an impartial jury under Sixth Fourteenth Amendments prohibits exclusion of venire members for cause in capital cases unless their stated opposition death penalty would prevent or substantially impair performance duties as jurors. Davis Georgia, 429 122, 97 399, 50 339, effect established a per se rule requiring vacation sentence imposed by from which potential juror, who has conscientious scruples against but nevertheless is eligible serve, been erroneously excluded cause. At voir dire during petitioner's murder trial, trial judge eight instances denied prosecutor's motions dismiss expressed some degree doubt about penalty. The prosecutor used peremptory challenges remove those panel members. When member Bounds, although initially somewhat confused her response, that she could reach guilty verdict vote impose penalty, excused on motion prosecutor, then had exercised all his challenges. acknowledged he made use whose was unequivocal. Ultimately, Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed conviction sentence. Although acknowledging Bounds clearly qualified be court concluded erroneous did not prejudice petitioner since error simply corrected other errors committed refusing after they unequivocally Held: judgment reversed part case remanded. 472 So.2d 409, Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Parts I, II, III-A, III-B-1, IV, concluding that: 1 1. Venire seated juror progeny. Thus, authorized exclude Pp. 657—659. 2 2. reaffirmed. violations constitute reversible constitutional error, cannot subjected harmless-error review. 659-657. 3 (a) State Court's analysis rejected if extent it based reasoning restored one State's determining erred denying motions, Bounds' removal therefore harmless have challenge any case. This "unexercised peremptory" argument wrongly assumes crucial question whether particular prospective due court's ruling. Rather, relevant inquiry composition whole possibly affected error. However, selection process requires series on-the-spot decisions weighing relative objectionableness number available at time. nature defies attempt establish harmless. 661-666. 4 (b) single technical should considered because prejudicial unavailing Davis. 666—667. 5 3. stand insofar imposes P. 668. 6 BLACKMUN, joined BRENNAN, MARSHALL, STEVENS, Part III-B-2 that, appears prosecutors often hesitation imposing courts generally do review prosecution's reasons exercising challenges, said scrupled, yet eligible, isolated incident having no so basic fair infraction can never treated 667-668. 7 POWELL, agreed removing resentencing. But proper means jurors might shared views exacerbate created removal, significance decision this progeny restrict traditional rights peremptorily believed unwilling lawful punishment. 669-672. 8 J., announced with respect JJ., joined, III-B-2, joined. filed concurring judgment, post, p. ----. SCALIA, dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE O'CONNOR, 9 Andru H. Volinsky, petitioner. 10 Marvin L. White, Jr., Jackson, Miss., respondent. 11 STEVENS join. 12 More than years ago, 339 (1976) (per curiam ), certiorari summarily state ruled when misapplies 776 (1968), excludes fact stand.1 presents now abandon ruling and, instead, subject impermissible 13 * In June 1982, Gray indicted Harrison County, charge stabbing Ronald Wojcik while engaged commission felony kidnapping.2 began assembling entire courtroom. He formed initial calling persons box. Tr. 193-194. After preliminary questioning regarding prior knowledge parties involved, commenced examination panel. removed challenge, another called box prosecutor. reached point where accept full stood, shifted defense attorney followed same procedure. continued alternating fashion, each side examining last opportunity inquire, until final selected. 14 were questioned individually most part, took place presence others well courtroom waiting called. As result, able learn consequences different responses. particular, learned what response likely result being jury. caused difficulty questioning. asked punishment Whenever revealed such uncertainty ability cast vote, moved instance granted motion. Id., 368. instances, however, App. 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, 16.3 denials these for-cause observed perhaps forthright responses criticized them expressing insincere order admonished them: "Now I don't want nobody telling me just get off Now, that's me." 16.4 15 By time Mrs. H.C. box, see Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-3 (1972), apparently unrelated members' questions. See 301-302, 381, 390-391. confused, ultimately consider appropriate capable voting it.5 Evidently deciding realizing left, allow challenge.6 22. argued five six thereby compelled asserted Bounds. Ibid. 16 observed, "Well, think right, you didn't equivocate. Uh, idea we'd run into many." 23. counsel objected granting 13th ibid., urged reverse earlier restore State. responded: 17 examine myself. Of course, admit unequivocal, them, answered way. 18 "Go ask [Bounds] she'd guilty, . let's says that. 19 "If says, gets equivocating I'm going let person can't make up mind." questioning, either guilty. 24. Despite answers, renewed Defense pointed out answers questions render excludable. further contended properly jurors, cause, determine excludable Witherspoon. language noted, "I this, guess. ." 25. 21 still discussion, expressly declined reconsider refusals strike cause.7 both sides accepted two alternates. afternoon three days later convicted sentenced him death. 22 otherwise unanimous divided claim invalid violated inconsistent 's dictates. 409 (1985). majority outset problem failure follow guidelines set forth Armstrong State, 214 589, 593 (Miss.1968), cert. denied, 395 965, 89 2109, 23 750 (1969), aimed ensuring compliance So.2d, 421. violation procedure, conviction. explained reluctance serve complicated selection. discuss detail whom It refused excuse several inflict it. offered following explanation judge's action: 24 "It abundantly clear record reason doing claiming released service. Confronted attestations personal moral convictions, even though indicated dismissed Adams [v. Texas, 448 38, 100 2521, 65 581 (1980) ]." 421-422 (footnote omitted). 25 reviewing dire, "was [Wainwright v.] Witt, [469 412, 105 844, 83 841 (1985) ] criteria." 422. concluded, prejudiced juror: 26 "The force correct circumstance. That recognized rulings affirmative action error." 422-423. 27 Writing dissent court, Sullivan emphasized according record, ("the contradicts very words"), basis challenge. 424. dissent's view, majority's because, treat dismissals 425. 28 We certiorari, 475 1010, 106 1182, 299 (1986), improper excusal II 29 Witherspoon, held defendant's Amendments, prohibited "simply voiced general objections religious infliction." U.S., 522, S.Ct., 1776. reasoned must limited "irrevocably regardless facts circumstances emerge course proceedings," making guilt. n. 21, 1777, 21. reexamined occasions, Wainwright 469 (1985), we clarified standard may there "whether juror's 'prevent accordance instructions oath.' " 424, 852, quoting 45, 2526, (1980). 30 There need delve again intricacies standard. necessary, keep mind Amendments. 31 writing Court, recently explained: 32 important remember oppose are cases; firmly believe unjust long willing temporarily aside own beliefs deference law." Lockhart McCree, 476 162, 176, 1758, 1766, 90 137 (1986). 33 power juries does extend beyond interest "frustrate legitimate administering sentencing schemes oaths." 423, 851. To permit unnecessarily narrows cross section "stack[s] deck execute [such a] deprive life without 523, 1778. 34 Every Witt 422 agree. Gray's chooses III 35 cited present case, surely Davis, 123-124, 399-400 (dissenting opinion). served identify Witherspoon.8 Soon decided, presented situations exhibited confusion how apply enunciated case.9 1971, judgments sentences remanded proceedings light 403 946-948. Several relied analyses similar seeks resurrect here. nn. 16, infra. 36 occasion revisit issue period between Furman 408 238, 92 2726, 346 Branch decided Furman, Georgia Texas invalidated, Gregg 428 153, 96 2909, 49 859 (1976), companion cases, upheld post-Furman statutes Gregg, appeared. fact, our first post-Gregg inform lower continue era. 123, 399. instant adopt once decline so. 37 efforts determination suggested analyses. Krauss, Doctrine End: Death-Qualification Reexamined, Am.Crim.L.Rev. 1, 32, 111 (1987). state's retention unexercised end indication approach relies representation second ultimate fairly represent community anyway. variation analysis; respondent urges second.10 find unpersuasive. 38 seeming ambiguity complicates analysis. susceptible possible interpretations. failing seen itself offset valid third previously interpretation, 39 disagree rests interpretation wholly unsupported record. explicit 7, supra. motions. Whether actually discerned responded least suggesting avoid type adequate foundation exclusion, law, contrary implications dissent, himself members.11 comply Had done so, despite responses, positions upon concerns weaker originally stated. become inadequate precludes appellate cause.12 40 also approve remedying denial Our embraced well-worn adage "two wrongs right." prefer remedy mistakes possible, condone "correction" commitment another. 41 Moreover, deprived improperly less guaranteed Peremptory origin. Batson Kentucky, 79, 97, 1712, 1723, 69 (1986); Swain Alabama, 380 202, 219, 85 824, 835, 759 (1965); Stilson United States, 250 583, 586, 28, 29, 63 L.Ed. 1154 (1919). situation comes conflict statutory former prevails.13 42 Finally, holds constitutes states juror. 1971 summary reversals rejections peremptories" argument.14 43 A fresh leads us conclude rejected.15 error" (emphasis original). Moore Estelle, 670 F.2d 56, 58 (CA5) (specially opinion), 458 1111, 102 3495, 73 1375 (1982). Due counsel's decisionmaking selection, remaining affects exercise fewer hand certain given larger reserve peremptories. Even statement remaining, her, know left use. is, more exercise. Witherspoon-Witt 44 practical adoption insulate meaningful stating prepared denies ensure routine matter, append B 45 equally unavailing. rested 236 Ga. 804, 225 S.E.2d 241 (1976). read argument.16 formulated Chapman California, 386 87 705 (1967), affirm 46 justify Davis' stand. correctly prohibit 'entrust[ing] man live die tribunal organized return death,' 'stack[ing] petitioner.' Ga., 809, S.E.2d, 244, 521, 1777. focused 'the deserves scales deliberately tipped toward death.' 521-522, 20, 1776-1777, 20. concluded: rationale merely class group shown, here, serve." 244-245. "other veniremen determined unalterably opposed circumstances." 810, 245. Nevertheless, subsequently 47 reaffirm today brings focus real-world factors inappropriate application exclusions Unlike found excused, support finding. suggests opposite—that penalty.17 Because challenges,18 manner,19 say confidence Therefore, effect. 48 rooted jury, 416, 848, impartiality adjudicator goes integrity legal system, apply. "some [are] 23, 827. adjudicator, right. 8, 828, citing, among Tumey Ohio, 273 437, 71 749 (1927) (impartial judge). "tribunal death" equates criminal culpability 'organized convict.' 1776, Fay New York, 332 261, 294, 67 1613, 1630, 91 2043 (1947). IV Mississippi, sentence, reversed, opinion. ordered. judgment. 51 invalid. show times inartful finally explicitly carry duty Cf. (juror juror' (quoting (1980)). Given willingness agree precise addressed 52 grounds before illustrate why inappropriate. SCALIA's concludes allowed peremptorily. points required exhaust unequivocal Post, 673. excused.1 assume "but for" mistakes. notes, difficult appeal reconstruct strategy, predict different. If certainly saved chance objectionable come along, grounds. requirement enhanced reliability hesitate "definitely" same, solely speculation acted.2 join except III-B-2. 53 plurality "real-world factors" notes involved member. Ante, 667. incident, conclusion rejected. my sufficient resolve whole. For unexplained reasons, distinguish pointing here "exercised penalty." 667 relevance observation. differently attitude Such rather Presumably, then, disapproval 54 dispute indeed duty, ethical obtain conviction, including believes prosecution oriented. precedents suggest line restricts manner. exacerbated views. 55 acknowledges judges normally inquire 2056, 18. exception rule, defendant prima facie racial bias venire. Batson, justified compelling vestiges invidious discrimination concern obviously implicated facts. Nothing motives whenever Brown North Carolina, 479 940, 93 373 (1986) (O'CONNOR, certiorari). require resentencing case,3 free express punishment, attach 56 57 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, WHITE, O'CONNOR join, dissenting. vacated event any, consisted giving wrong action—which conceivably fairness 59 Before nine only Five unambiguously Record 368-369 (Mr. Ruiz), 381-383 (Mrs. Coker), 392-393 Bush), 394-395 398-399 Price), 401-403 Walker). These statements undoubtedly rendered See, e.g., (a "would oath"). Darden Wainwright, 477 168, 175, 2464, 2470, 144 420, 850, (1968). eventually realized erred. 554 ("[I] cheated District Attorney instances"); ibid. (five "were [capital punishment] answered, substance, stronger [Witherspoon ]"); id., 548 ("Of .").1 agreed. (several jurors' "responses [under] "); 422-423 (the "in [potential] circumstance"). 60 agreement excluded, plurality—without discussing responses—claims unable cause.2 662. According plurality, 61 "despite cause." 662—663 62 brief passage, invents—but unfortunately justify—a new doctrine, provision contradicted cases. "further questioning" reveal really mean hinted (perhaps obvious saying much necessary satisfy it—a understandably provides guidance) implicitly rejection comparison entirety follows: "[Prosecutor (P) ]: question, ma'am. Do penalty? 64 "[Prospective Juror (J) am afraid personally not— "[P]: Speak up, please. 66 "[J]: little personal, definitely religious. interfere sitting case? 68 would. You would? 70 Yes, sir. Would judging guilt innocence Defendant 72 74 would." 415-416, 847-848. 75 extensive, far categorical. example, Coker went Coker, Capital Punishment law? 76 "[Mrs. Coker]: 77 Punishment. tell 78 79 instructed gave law told whereby [sic Death Penalty, meant Penalty? 80 [Inaudible.] 81 Ma'am? 82 not. it? 84 86 That's And Punishment, me, case." 381-383. makes effort reconcile Witt. hints feigning 652—653, 656, 4. Constitution permits lie oath concerned dissembling, 410, 445, 540, acted 540. were. federal obstacle request back Bounds.3 (It permissible 423.) true produced impaneled uncorrected—and place. suggested, be, prevents correcting favor defendants affect concedes remedied dismissing starting anew. 663—664, 13. replaced drastic permissible. come, difficulty—which instead purposes constitutionally observes, "if venireman [for cause], stand." 400, ). not, extended vacate identical indicates extension misguided, "the 'whether error.' 665 (1982)). endorses upheld. described, lawfully event, excluded. difference form exclusion—essentially utterance words another—could thus sentence.4 94 omit commenting plurality's dictum implying unconstitutional consistently reservations 667—668. disagree. Prosecutors many insufficient legislative exclusion. legislate sympathetic average violate using people. Since presumably opposite "deliberately toward" applies perceived likelihood remarks relatively 522 579 Cavode), 573-577 Hester). foregoing respectfully dissent. Three Members dissented disposition They plenary consideration. precedential briefing argument. Edelman Jordan, 415 651, 671, 1347, 1359, 662 (1974). repulsive crime Mississippi. 412 procedures confine recitation process. supported specified causes demonstrate matter serve. J. Van Dyke, Jury Selection Procedures 139-140 (1977). limitation challenged contrast, States traditionally allotted litigants ordinarily articulating 145-147, limitations. statute provides: "In shall twelve challenges." Miss.Code (1972). refer attempting convince strong heighten sense responsibility, acting oaths, 408, thus, transcript reveals apparent uttered admonition. During member, interrupted said: "Let answer Jury. You'd Another member's telling: mean, way now, would, know, Penalty." 7-8. clarify position: "BY COURT: words, imposition it's law. Is right? MRS. BOUNDS: Okay." eligibility serve: could. All She oral additional say, unaware state-court issue. Oral Arg. 35-37. noted occasions aware, granted, opposing received equal number. 36. prefaced explanation: "I'd hate woman. mind. firm five, there's around nine, "And was, uh, should, point, lady totally indecisive. thing instances. particularcase." MR. STEGALL [defense counsel]: Excuse cause? her. STEGALL: Let (Interposing) add Okay. go give more. added). twice reaffirmed holding opinions demonstrating application. Boulden Holman, 394 478, 481-484, 1138, 1140-1142, 433 Maxwell Bishop, 398 262, 264-266, 1578, 1580-1581, 221 (1970) Some already recognized, import mandate Marion Beto, 434 (1970), 402 906, 1372, 646 (1971), Appeals Fifth Circuit described split violations. F.2d, 31-32. reversal magnitude unanimity required. 32. California re Anderson, Cal.2d 613, 618-620, Cal.Rptr. 25-26, 447 P.2d 117, 121-122 sub nom. Anderson 406 971, 2415, 671 yield Cal.2d, 620, Cal.Rptr., 26, P.2d, 122. devoted significant portion owes findings court. where, dependent misapplication Rogers Richmond, 365 534, 547, 735, 743, 760 (1961), internally inconsistent. rest unambiguous finding 'if infliction authorizes it, testimony warrants veniremen, affirmative, could, nevertheless, they, weight worth evidence, convinced warranted verdict. Those evidence retained, released.' 421, (Miss.1968). belatedly extensively, pursuant Furthermore, intended errors, expect identified specifically enough compensate errors. applied "should afforded trial." 423. equivalent sua sponte start afresh. special compiled month. 34-35, 46. shorter waived 52. People Bernette, Ill.2d 227, 258 N.E.2d 793 Illinois 232, N.E.2d, 796. 947, 2290, 858 (1971). Wigglesworth 2284, 857 rev'g Ohio St.2d 171, 181, 248 607, 614 (1969). Other rejecting numerous. (CA5), (1982), "countenance amounts retroactively affidavit collateral attack reserved time." Hance Zant, 696 956 (CA11), 463 1210, 103 3544, 1393 (1983) (existence alternate ); Blankenship 247 590, 277 505, 280 623 (1981) (see specially reconsideration, 597, 624, "there too variables rise non-use challenge"); Grijalva S.W.2d 424-425 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (rejecting allowing retrospective transforms "a juror" ground error"). Adams, Wash.2d 650, 558 Washington incorrect systematic 680-681, 576. reversed. 2273, 855 607 Harris 2291, 457 903 (Tex.Crim.App.1970). goal point: "[W]hat trying people tells (sic) 16. recent judicial establishes purposeful concerning trial. Winick, Prosecutorial Challenge Practices Cases: An Empirical Study Constitutional Analysis, Mich.L.Rev. (1982); Lindsay, Abuse Challenges Penalty Litigation: Ethical Considerations, Campbell L.Rev. states, unsuccessfully Ruiz "[a]ny case"); case"). takes arguing asserts above misses focuses revise 678—679, harm; inferences drawn Thus reasonable result. changed, "returned" supports inference. aware excusing change decisions. procedure permitted plainly disputed rulings. 26. unpersuaded irrelevant, authority reasons. harmless, shown removed, absence bearing validity statements, 548, 552-553, 12. assertion expressions regret precisely patterned 552-553. completely consistent erred, hard imagine "unambiguous finding" standard" ante, ----, 10. 423 POWELL containing claim, 669. necessarily rejects conclusion. 546, fashion quite discussed 664-665, assumed "that 'but for' 669—670. supra, 6. identity outcome occurred rights. Here, concedes, 670-671, 2, (which aggrieved defendant), restoration decision, explained, Nor grant motion, persisting mistaken undeserved benefit seems logic sustained follows inevitably judge, excluding taken different, course.

Category: 0