Document: 476 U.S. 28 106 S.Ct. 1683 90 L.Ed.2d 27 Willie Lloyd TURNER, Petitionerv.Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections. No. 84-6646. Argued Dec. 12, 1985. Decided April 30, 1986. Syllabus Petitioner, a black man, was indicted in on charges capital murder for fatally shooting the white proprietor jewelry store course robbery. During voir dire, state trial judge refused petitioner's request to question prospective jurors racial prejudice. The jury convicted petitioner, and, after separate sentencing hearing, recommended that he be sentenced death, recommendation accepted. Supreme Court upheld death sentence, rejecting argument deprived him fair by refusing Petitioner then sought habeas corpus relief Federal District Court, which rejected same and denied relief, Appeals affirmed. Held: judgment is reversed, case remanded. 753 F.2d 342, reversed Justice WHITE delivered opinion with respect Parts I III, concluding defendant accused an interracial crime entitled have informed victim's race questioned issue bias. This rule minimally intrusive. As other cases involving "special circumstances," retains discretion as form number questions, including whether venire individually or collectively. Also, cannot complain failure prejudice unless has specifically requested such inquiry. Pp.29-33, 36-37 WHITE, joined BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, concluded II IV that: (1) risk may infected unacceptable light ease risk, being especially serious view finality could been minimized. Ristaino v. Ross, 424 589, 96 1017, 47 258, distinguished. Pp. 33-36. (2) While it not necessary petitioner retried guilt, there infecting proceeding, inadequacy dire requires his sentence vacated. arose from conjunction three factors: fact charged involved violence, broad given under law at special seriousness improper case. 37-38. J., announced BRENNAN, JJ., joined, IV, joined. BURGER, C.J., concurred judgment. filed concurring part dissenting part, post, p. 38. MARSHALL, 45. POWELL, opinion, REHNQUIST, J. Snook, Charlottesville, Va., petitioner. James E. Kulp, Richmond, respondent. O'CONNOR join. 1 man storekeeper. presented committed reversible error 2 * On July 1978, entered Franklin, Virginia, armed sawed-off shotgun. He demanded proprietor, Jack Smith, Jr., put money cash register into some bags. Smith complied demand, but triggered silent alarm, alerting Police Department. When Alan Bain, police officer, arrived inquire about surprised forced surrender revolver. 3 Having learned had became agitated. fired toward rear wall stated if saw heard any more officers, going start killing those store.1 siren sounded, walked where stationed behind counter without warning shot head Bain's pistol, wounding causing slump incapacitated floor. 4 Officer Bain attempted calm promising take anywhere wanted go asking shoot again. angrily replied kill "snitching," two pistol shots Smith's chest, him. turned away able disarm place arrest. 5 A Southampton County, grand murder, use firearm commission possession shotgun granted change venue Northampton rural county 80 miles location murder. 6 Prior commencement counsel submitted list proposed following: 7 " 'The defendant, Turner, member Negro race. victim, Caucasian. Will these facts you against Turner affect your ability render impartial verdict based solely evidence?' Commonwealth, 221 Va. 513, 522, n. 8, 273 S.E.2d 36, 42, 8 (1980). declined ask this question, stating "has ruled Court."2 App. 15. did venire, who were groups five presence, person aware reason why verdict, all answered "no." Id., 17, 78. At time asked, no way knowing victim white. 9 empaneled, consisted eight whites four blacks, 97 Addendum. After hearing charge, 18, 19. 10 appealed Court. Among points, argued constitutional right argument. Relying our decision 258 (1976), court judge's refusal their attitudes, while perhaps wisest matter policy, constitutionally objectionable absence factors akin Ham South Carolina, 409 524, 93 848, 35 46 (1973).3 supra, 523, S.E. 2d, 42. held "[t]he mere does mandate . inquiry [into prejudice]." Ibid.4 11 failed direct appeal, Eastern Virginia. 97. Again success attitudes trial. 102-104. noted Ristaino, violence,5 we required because 'did suggest significant likelihood might infect [the defendant's] trial.' 103 (quoting U.S., 598, S.Ct., 1022). found present like unlike "racial issues [are] 'inextricably bound up 103. 12 United States Fourth Circuit affirmed Court's denial Bass, 342 (1985). Like circumstances" analogous Ham. idea "the nature punishment itself circumstance." F.2d, 345. likewise circumstance white.6 13 We certiorari review Circuit's potential concerning 471 1098, 105 2319, 85 838 reverse. 14 correctly states analytical framework evaluating argument: "The each must circumstances that, absent questioning prejudice, would indifferent [they stand] unsworn". 345-346 (internal quotation omitted). correct, too, holding constitute circumstance" proportions. What sets apart however, addition offense. 15 In proceeding before jury, called upon make "highly subjective, 'unique, individualized regarding particular deserves.' Caldwell Mississippi, 472 320, 340, 7, 2633, 2645-2646, 86 231 (1985) Zant Stephens, 462 862, 900, 2733, 2755, 77 235 (1983) (REHNQUIST, judgment)). statute instructive kinds judgments make. First, order consider penalty, find either likely commit future violent crimes "outrageously wantonly vile, horrible inhuman torture, depravity mind aggravated battery victim." Va.Code § 19.2-264.2 (1983). Second, mitigating evidence offered defendant. Mitigating include, limited to, tending show acted influence extreme emotional mental disturbance, defendant's capacity "to appreciate criminality conduct conform requirements significantly impaired." 19.2-264.4(B). Finally, even aggravating factor, irrespective offered, recommend imposed. 19.2-264.2. 16 Virginia's death-penalty gives greater than systems challenge. See, e.g., Jurek Texas, 428 262, 2950, 49 929 (1976). However, establish every sentencer free weigh relevant deciding impose see, Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 102 869, 71 (1982); Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 597-609, 98 2954, 2960-2967, 57 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), end difficult, deserves death. 17 Because range entrusted unique opportunity operate remain undetected. case, juror believes blacks are violence prone morally inferior well influenced belief specified law. Such also less favorably inclined disturbance circumstance. More subtle, consciously juror's Fear easily stirred crime, incline favor penalty.7 18 complete sentence. opinions majority individual Justices, recognized qualitative difference punishments correspondingly degree scrutiny determination." California Ramos, 463 992, 998-999, 3446, 1171 struck down sentences when they imposed "created 'the penalty [may been] meted out arbitrarily capriciously' through 'whim mistake.' Caldwell, 343, 2647 (O'CONNOR, judgment) (citation minimized.8 By adequately protect jury.9 III 19 hold bias.10 propose intrusive; questions subject, See 527, 850-51. 20 It necessary, guilt. Our proceeding. case.11 guilt phase trial, noncapital Thus, indistinguishable continue adhere.12 5, supra. 21 remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 22 so ordered. 23 THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs 24 part. 25 vacates disturb conviction. Adhering my cruel unusual prohibited Eighth Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg Georgia, 153, 227, 2909, 859 (1976) (Brennan, dissenting), agree But view, still unconstitutionally members possible bias whenever committed. Ross Massachusetts, 414 1080, 94 599, 38 486 (1973) (MARSHALL, certiorari). reality relations country simply presume impartiality, runs high community serving confronted disturbing criminal often terrifying abhorrent. analyzing Constitution judges accommodate defendants' requests inquiries I, am what describes "ease" Ante, 36. 26 event, fully join For although clearly half right, wrong. recognizing guarantee entitles bias—a new sentencing—the disavows logic its own reasoning denying accomplishes postulating role fundamentally different function former rise tainted racism. believe analysis improperly intertwines significance consequences bias, distinction between jury's substance far concerned, only portion granting dissent vacate Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants jury. exhortation carries concomitant reasonable steps designed insure impartial." 532, 853, part). most important means strike manifest inability try basis evidence. exclude incompetent exercised meaningfully effectively sufficient information evaluate venire. White Rosales-Lopez States, 451 182, 188, 101 1629, 1634, 68 (1981), "lack adequate impairs exercise peremptory challenges provided rule, federal courts." (footnote Recognizing fact, long ago "essential demands fairness" require entertain Aldridge 283 308, 51 470, 75 L.Ed. 1054 (1931); see Carolina. recently, refine analysis, declared showing "likelihood" ethnic jurors, honor examine jurors' deal impartially adduced Rosales-Lopez, 190, 1635. Exercising supervisory powers over courts, committed, races, per se inference "reasonable possibility" shown. act faced will elevate presumptive 29 identifies factors, "conjunction" These violence; hearing; (3) case." 37. present, commits defense bear accept released obligation jury—or, another way, stripped safeguard—when passing "only" guilt/innocence, rather appropriate 30 untenable face. best can understand it, thesis since phase, "there [in hearing] undetected." 35. discussion demonstrates taint process "uniquely" equally factor bifurcated 31 According prejudiced sitting law; notes similarly cause accused's circumstances. Moreover, informs us: 32 "More decision. [a] penalty." Ibid. 33 flaw "analysis" connection proposition advanced, support proffered thesis, conclusion drawn. words, certainly true, maintains, inclines one disbelieve disfavor object incontestable subconscious, express, fears hatreds deny fairness despised; seek meaningful providing expose hidden prejudices. never explains biases should concern phase. asserts "a law." prejudices whether, example, credit discredit witnesses opposed phase? Might conviction? 34 determine innocence is, bottom, nothing sum total countless small discretionary decisions made sits box. conviction acquittal turns key testimony believed rejected; alibi sounds plausible dubious; character witness appears trustworthy unsavory; concludes motive, inclination, available charged. racially biased blurred vision impaired sensibilities incapable fairly making myriad To simply, prejudged. true sentencing. violate basic values justice system. understands. seems comprehend permit violates precisely way. incongruity split apparent appreciated poison decisionmaking operates returns context us. Implicit acknowledgment pronounced acted, exact Turner. Does really mean entitlement attaches off prosecution? 36 My sense confused unfair acting suspect animating outrage rightly experiences prospect color skin. Perhaps slightly troubled motivated unaccompanied suppose if, unimaginable reason, choose cases, rectify one, remedy need cases. me obvious, implicated judged regardless focus thus belongs flows (1973), young marijuana; known civil rights activist, persuaded inextricably harbor intensified oblige reject claim months' imprisonment. Surely subject day lifetime. 37 Solomonic "splitting difference" "half" demanded. Starkly put, "wins" gets resentenced, State lose King Solomon not, baby two, done so, remembered wisdom hardheartedness. served compromising principles reverse compliance whom BRENNAN joins, 39 reasons (dissenting certiorari), involves crime. concedes, "it plain influencing violence." 8. plainly outweighs slight cost allowing identify nor today, additional burdens accompany rule. therefore continuing rejection simple prophylactic Ristaino. 40 Even agreed permitting reversing Henceforth dire. When, here, assured both phases. Yet incongruous result. concur vacating well. 41 REHNQUIST dissenting. 42 today adopts applicable bias." 36-37. certain add already heavy burden petitions prisoners death1 affording real protection beyond 43 effect, recognizes presumption sworn decide nevertheless biased. flatly contrary 1635, (1981).2 demonstrate unnecessary unwise law, always leaving case-by-case basis.3 Before insufficient raise prejudice," seated. 596, 1021. 44 Nothing record suggests played deliberations. merit emphasis itself, create substantial expected distort trials. Without trials, justification departing 45 robbery brutal. store's times. first kill, caused fall helplessly floor, bleeding scalp wound. answer pleaded officer managed subdue arrest conclusive.4 local media gave extensive publicity, County across Chesapeake Bay No empaneled read vests responsibility examination jurors. 519-522, 40-42 (1980), cert. denied, 1011, 2347, 863 (1981). Ordinarily, judge, counsel, provide challenges. accordance practice, permitted parties asked during Counsel questions. 10th list, S.E.2d, 8.5 48 referred studies subsequently placed record. purported murders receive defendants, included statistics administration 9, 9. discussed judge. prosecutor pointed races. general uncover "Do know whatsoever Commonwealth Virginia?" Each responded negatively.6 persons ultimately citizens, selected foreman. 50 There reflects overtones kind. From close particularly posed "an impermissible threat guaranteed due process." 595, purport circumstance, explain now consideration 597, 1021-1022. illustrates adopt constitutionalizes unjustifiable Until unconstitutional abuse showed "were trial."7 makes showing, "distort trial." Under circumstances, therefore, include[s] directed prejudice." Ibid.; 526-527, 850-851. expressly requiring Neither sound policy considerations supported approach.8 decides exercises ignores many procedural substantive safeguards, similar governing innocence, circumscribe 52 offense "willful, deliberate premeditated" perpetrator engaged 18.2-31 (Supp.1985). prosecution, course, proving elements doubt. Following proves doubt statutorily defined factors. record, probability inhuman, victim."9 §§ 19.2-264.2, 19.2-264.4 53 existence limitations wholly unfounded. Just charge instructs prosecution established element doubt, directs determination warranting imposition Accordingly, just race, constitutionalize sit 54 Nor anything grounds justify adoption proved noted, 1974 malicious maiming, escape, unlawful wounding, second-degree Four offenses occurred penal system." 525, 11, 44, 11. "one extensive" reviewed 531, 47. observed "vile" victim. 55 foregoing decision, provides ground Instead, until afforded raised proceedings. rejects singularly unjustified latent 56 appear innocuous. amounts unjustifiably courts grounds. easy reconcile applied States.10 manner tried sentenced, fulfilled civic duty reflected trace presumes. reasons, dissent. employee customers time. Whether referring unclear. Ham, Carolina hometown activist arrested marijuana. Ham's mandated Ham: "Ham's framed activities. His prominence veniremen, inevitably revealed presentation defense. Racial Further, reputation interposed intensify harbor." 596-597, reliance statistical study victims disproportionate frequency. study, compiled little utility establishing men assaulting security guard intent assault 590, 1018. suggestion murderers whose executed frequency, quoting '[t]here groups.' 345 1635). do retreat alone entitling clear, though, blind evoke 192, 1636: "It remains unfortunate society perpetrated [a possibility jury]." condone possibility, leaves measures screening "significant [the] 1022. POWELL's takes terms "singularly Post, 53. remark fails distinguish recognition presumption, make, prejudiced. POWELL implicitly distinction, suits purposes; thus, say presumed prejudiced, 'distort 50. Once rhetoric aside, supra; point becomes unacceptable. Notwithstanding Powell's attempt minimize 50-52, convinced restricted factfinding. This, together distinguishes Amendment, process. 6, 1020, 6. contends "in clear negative effect suggesting somehow 48-49, 5. purely chimerical leave counsel. Should decline broach topic sua sponte. introduced incorrectly reads phase." 43. throughout rules imposes furtherance right. reaffirm compelling judges. implication BRENNAN's Over dissent, squarely approach. unpersuaded [and sentencing] phase[s] 41. hearings entirely order, involve subjective innocence. traveled layer systems. underlying petition. Trial commenced December 3, 1979, 4, 1979. recommendation, February 1980. convictions sentences. petition writ certiorari. Southampton. That review. Morris, 1112, 2465, 1341 Then, May 23, 1984, writ. certiorari, (1985), reverses. "Although alleged confrontation assailant pattern 'constitutional dimensions' 597 [96 1021-22]. groups. demonstrates, 1021, 8]. Only indications affecting court's amount discretion." 1635 opinion). Although WHITE's plurality, REHNQUIST's result language. "Despite importance, adequacy appellate later Both reach conclusions impartiality credibility relying evaluations demeanor responses 595 1020-21, 258] Rideau Louisiana, 373 723, 733 [83 1417, 1422-23, 663] (1963) (Clark, dissenting). neither instance second-guess decisionmaker witnesses." 1634. oral argument, conceded client's Tr. Oral Arg. event prospectively only, simplistic Asking demonstrate, prompt admit 593, 1020 undesirable illustrative. There, activities, theory retaliation facts, refuse Not central "reputation "In heterogeneous militate divisive assumption—as rule—that turn pigmentation skin, accident birth, choice religion." properly "vileness" clause limiting construction ensure recommending channeled standards. Godfrey 446 420, 100 1759, 64 398 Sentence two-pronged showing. prove 'outrageously inhuman.' 526, 44-45. "torture perpetrator's mind." purports ante, 35, above-cited none them reconciled

Category: 0