Document: 476 U.S. 162 106 S.Ct. 1758 90 L.Ed.2d 137 A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Petitionerv.Ardia V. McCREE. No. 84-1865. Argued Jan. 13, 1986. Decided May 5, Syllabus At respondent's state-court trial for capital felony murder, the judge at voir dire removed cause, over objections, those prospective jurors who stated that they could not under any circumstances vote imposition death penalty—that is, so-called "Witherspoon -excludables" principles Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 510, 88 1770, 20 776. The jury convicted respondent, but sentencing phase it rejected State's request penalty and set punishment life imprisonment without parole. conviction was affirmed on appeal, petition state postconviction relief denied. He then sought federal habeas corpus relief, contending "death qualification" by removal cause violated his rights Sixth Fourteenth Amendments to have guilt or innocence determined an impartial selected from a representative cross section community. District Court ruled prior bifurcated both fair impartiality requirements Constitution. Appeals ground Amendment right Held: Constitution does prohibit trial, whose opposition is so strong would prevent substantially impair performance their duties as trial. This even assuming, arguendo, social science studies introduced in courts below were adequate establish fact produces juries somewhat more "conviction-prone" than "non-death-qualified" juries. Pp. 173-183. (a) "Death violate fair-cross-section requirement Amendment, which applies panels venires require petit actually chosen reflect composition community large. Even if extended juries, essence claim systematic exclusion "distinctive group" such blacks, women, Mexican-Americans—for reasons completely unrelated ability members group serve particular case. Groups defined solely terms shared attitudes performing one jurors, issue here, are groups" purposes. carefully designed legitimate interest obtaining single can properly impartially apply law facts case phases 173-177. (b) Nor constitutional theory asserted respondent that, because all individual some extent predisposed towards result another, constitutionally be constructed only "balancing" various predispositions when State "tips scales" excluding with viewpoint, impermissibly partial results. An consists nothing will conscientiously find facts. Respondent's view illogical impractical. Neither Witherspoon, supra, nor Adams Texas, 448 38, 100 2521, 65 581, supports contention violates whenever "slants" individuals likely population large favor defendant. Here, serves entirely proper (as required law) decide issues Moreover, dealt special context sentencing, where range discretion necessarily gave rise far greater concern effects "imbalanced" jury. bar, contrast, deals jury's traditional role finding determining criminal defendant, channeled. 177-183. 758 F.2d 226 (CA8 1985), reversed. REHNQUIST, J., delivered opinion Court, BURGER, C.J., WHITE, POWELL, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, concurred result. MARSHALL, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN STEVENS, joined, post, p. 184. John Steven Clark, Little Rock, Ark., petitioner. Samuel R. Gross, Stanford, Cal., respondent. [Amicus Curiae Information page 164 intentionally omitted] Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 In this we address question left open our decision nearly 18 years ago 776 (1968): Does trial? See id., 520, n. 18, S.Ct., 1776, 18; Bumper North Carolina, 543, 545, 1788, 1790, 797 (1968). We hold not. 2 Respondent Ardia McCree United States Eastern claiming and, after McCree's consolidated another involving same remand Eighth Circuit, granted relief. Grigsby Mabry, 569 F.Supp. 1273 (1983). A sharply divided Circuit affirmed, (1985) (en banc), creating conflict recent decisions Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eleventh Circuits. Keeten Garrison, 742 129, 133-135 (CA4 1984), cert. pending, 84-6187; Smith Balkcom, 660 573, 576-578 (CA5 1981), modified other grounds, 671 858, denied sub nom. Tison Arizona, 459 882, 103 181, 74 148 (1982); Spinkellink Wainwright, 578 582, 594 1978), denied, 440 976, 99 1548, 59 796 (1979); ex rel. Clark Fike, 538 750, 761-762 (CA7 1976), 429 1064, 97 791, 50 781 (1977); Corn Zant, 708 549, 564 (CA11 1983), 467 1220, 104 2670, 81 375 (1984). certiorari resolve conflict, 474 816, 59, 48 (1985), now reverse judgment Circuit. 3 On morning February 14, 1978, combination gift shop service station Camden, Arkansas, robbed, Evelyn Boughton, owner, shot killed. That afternoon, arrested Hot Springs, police officer saw him driving maroon white Lincoln Continental matching eyewitness' description getaway car used Boughton's killer. next evening, admitted he had been time murder. claimed, however, tall black stranger wearing overcoat first asked ride, took rifle out back kill Boughton. also claimed rode nearby dirt road, got car, walked away rifle. story contradicted two eyewitnesses between murder said away, person car. found bank bag alongside road. Based ballistics tests, Federal Bureau Investigation testified bullet killed Boughton fired 4 charged violation Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1501(1)(a) (1977). accordance law, see Neal State, 259 Ark. 27, 31, 531 S.W.2d 17, 21 (1975), penalty. Eight excluded reason. penalty, instead setting direct 266 465, 585 938 (1979), post-conviction 5 raising, inter alia, qualification," -excludable" jurors,1 By stipulation parties, pending claim, remanded evidentiary hearing App. 9-11; 637 525 (1980). remainder petition, affirmed. Housewright, 689 (1982), 460 1088, 1782, 76 352 6 held July 1981, receiving evidence numerous concerning beliefs -excludables," along potential them August 1983, court concluded, based evidence, produced "were prone convict" defendants F.Supp., 1323. thus Amendments, Id., 1324.2 7 "substantial support" Court's conclusion resulted grant F.2d, 229. did claim. Ibid. up "to construct process" future trials comply Amendment. 242-243. Four judges dissented. 243-251. 8 Before turning legal case, constrained point what believe several serious flaws upon reached juries.3 into 15 support claims, purported measure guilt-innocence determination -excludables."4 remaining nine generalized about aspects justice system, thus, best, marginally relevant constitutionality conviction.5 15th final study questioning toward penalty,6 raised brief counsel oral argument not, standing alone, give violation.7 9 Of six least deal central namely, jury, three before decided Witherspoon.8 There, reviewed concluded: 10 "The data adduced petitioner . too tentative fragmentary opposed tend prosecution guilt. simply cannot conclude, either basis record us matter judicial notice, results unrepresentative increases risk conviction. light presently available information, prepared announce per se rule requiring reversal every returned was." U.S., 517-518, 1774-75 (footnote omitted). 11 It goes almost saying these "too fragmentary" make error 1968, studies, unchanged having aged years, still insufficient 12 do post-Witherspoon provide substantial "per rule" asks adopt. All "new" responses randomly segment population, actual sworn oath fate defendant.9 doubts value predicting behavior jurors. 248, (J. Gibson, dissenting). addition, attempt simulate process deliberation,10 none able predict extent, any, presence guilt-phase altered outcome determination.11 13 Finally, most importantly, attempted identify account "nullifiers," who, deep-seated unable defendant's fairly impartially.12 concedes, must, "nullifiers" may fail take fatally flawed.13 Surely reaching proposes should lone avoids fundamental flaw. 14 Having identified problems assume purposes methodologically valid hold, nonetheless, qualifying" cases. applied via incorporation through Duncan Louisiana, 145, 148-158, 1444, 1446-52, 491 (1968), But can, should, broadly it. never invoked principle invalidate use for-cause peremptory challenges venires, Duren Missouri, 439 357, 363-364, 664, 668, 58 579 Taylor 419 522, 538, 95 692, 701-02, 42 690 (1975) ("[W]e impose no must mirror distinctive groups population"); cf. Batson Kentucky, 79, 84-85, 4, 1712, 1716 69 (1986) (expressly declining "fair-cross-section" challenge discriminatory challenges).14 limited scope inevitable consequence practical impossibility providing each defendant truly "representative" 85-86, 6, 1717, basic truth itself acknowledged many its instant Childress, 715 1313 1983) 464 1063, 744, 79 202 (1984); Pope States, 372 710, 725 1967) (Blackmun, J.) ("The accused entitled cross-section names put box drawn"), vacated 392 651, 2145, 1317 remain convinced extension unworkable unsound, decline invitation adopt extension. 16 willing extend reject Circuit's requirement. "a 'distinctive' community." Duren, 364, 668. view, 17 precisely define term group," undertake today. think obvious concept "distinctiveness" linked Taylor, (1) "guard[ing] against exercise arbitrary power" ensuring "commonsense community" act hedge overzealous mistaken prosecutor," (2) preserving "public confidence fairness system," (3) implementing belief "sharing administration civic responsibility." 530-531, 697-98. Our jury-representativeness cases, whether component Equal Protection Clause involved Peters Kiff, 407 493, 92 2163, 33 83 (1972) (equal protection); supra (fair section); (same); Mexican-Americans, Castaneda Partida, 430 482, 1272, 51 498 (1977) protection). wholesale clearly contravened aforementioned Because possibility arbitrarily skewed way deny benefit common-sense inability immutable characteristic race, gender, ethnic background, undeniably "appearance unfairness." improperly deprived often historically disadvantaged citizens 19 bar differs significantly previously recognized "distinctive." unlike Mexican-Americans service, concededly trial.15 There very little danger, therefore, argue, instituted means skew capital-case juries.16 Furthermore, singled cases attribute within individual's control. important remember oppose subject cases; firmly unjust nevertheless long temporarily aside own deference law. includes obey respect hardly create serving leads deprivation citizenship. They treated differently juror expresses follow 22 sum, render contravening objectives Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 597, 98 2954, 2961, 57 973 (1978) ("Nothing suggests tried explicitly indicated instructions judge"). reason conclude constitute purposes, 23 argues holding, affirm alternative ground, adopted concedes served impartial, Irvin Dowd, 366 717, 723, 1639, 1643, 751 (1961) ("It sufficient lay impression verdict presented court"), Reynolds (8 Otto) 25 L.Ed. 244 (1879). pretrial publicity, Rideau 373 1417, 663 (1963), parte communications, Remmer 347 227, 450, 654 (1954), undue influence, Estes 381 532, 85 1628, 543 (1965), affected deliberations. short, tainted kinds bias partiality violative Instead, lacked absence "slanted" 24 agree. "impartiality" apparently Thus, according McCree, consistently impartiality, including recently last Term squarely "jurors facts." Wainwright Witt, 469 412, 423, 105 844, 852, 841 (emphasis added); Phillips, 455 209, 217, 102 940, 946, 71 78 (1982) ("Due capable it"); 722, 1642 ("In essence, guarantees criminally panel 'indifferent' jurors"). urged hopelessly characterizes qualification." admits exactly ended "luck draw," violating guarantee impartiality. accepting position focus rather hard understand logic given unconstitutionally state-ordained process, yet mere chance. level, true certain mix viewpoints Sisyphean task making sure contains number Democrats Republicans, young persons old persons, white-collar executives blue-collar laborers, on. Adopting elimination challenges, commonly produce favorable challenger. 26 argues, 581 (1980), stand proposition overlooks differences therefore misconceives import decisions. 27 First, viewed Illinois system deliberately slanted purpose likely. said: 28 "But swept expressed conscientious religious scruples principle, crossed line neutrality. quest imposing uncommonly condemn man die. 29 "It course, settled entrust innocent guilty tribunal 'organized convict.' Fay New York, 332 261, 294 [67 1613, 1630, 91 2043] [1947]. Tumey 273 510 [47 437, 749] [1927]. requires short step today, live die organized return death." 520-521, 1776 (footnotes 30 explained rationale follows: 31 "In context, execute sentence imposed culled revealed during examination otherwise punishment. broad-based exclusion, since '[a] opposes less favors it, discretionary entrusted takes juror.' 519 [88 1775]." 43, 2525. 32 Adams, turn, straightforward application Texas scheme. 48, 2528 (Texas statute "focuses inquiry directly juror's hence falls doctrine"). hand, legislative enactment provides unitary 41-1301(3) Rector 280 385, 395, 659 168, 173 (1983), 466 988, 2370, 80 842 upheld attack Georgia plan provided sit Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 158, 160, 163, 96 2909, 2918-2920, 49 859 (1976) (opinion Stewart, JJ.), observed "unwilling say there scheme." Spaziano Florida, 468 447, 464, 3154, 3165, 82 340 34 Supreme choice cases: 35 has always except mandatory, responsibility shoulder burden fixing be, questions interwoven." Rector, S.W.2d, 173. 36 Another might "residual doubts" phase. adverted interest: 37 "[A]s observed, form residual 'whimsical' bend Such doubt extremely effective To divide degree eliminate influence doubts." 247-248 dissenting) (citations 38 MARSHALL's dissent points adhere allow argue sentencing. while justify skepticism go capitalize doubts," wholly vitiate interest. seems most, all, much bearing phase; different required, testimony twice, once As noted, "[s]uch repetitive perhaps accused." 396, 39 Unlike criticized excludes deliberations (1985).17 adhering preference negate inference drew lack neutral justification challenges. 40 Second, possible emphasized Witherspoon: 41 "[I]n broad 'the penalty' general views play decision. ". Guided neither standard, 'free select [sees] fit,' choose more—and less—than express conscience ultimate 519, 1775 original; footnotes 43 essentially unfettered discretion, "crossed neutrality" "produced die." 1776. 44 reasoning scheme, which, although purporting limit answering "factual" questions, reality vested considerable 46, 2527 ("This exact science, procedure unavoidably oaths"); Jurek 262, 273, 2950, 2957, 929 JJ.) ("Texas considering consider whatever mitigating defense bring it"). Again, nature led "exclude slightest prospect penalty." 50, 2529. 45 suggestion applicability outside sentencing,18 here. 46 reference hypothetical viewpoints. Prospective come backgrounds, predispositions. presupposes regardless represented carry duty satisfied standard. 47 Reversed. BLACKMUN concurs whom STEVENS join, dissenting. Eighteen ago, venirepersons expressing practice, held, "tribunal 521, "made unmistakably clear automatically punishment" assess impartially. 522-523, 21, 1777, 21. contends here "death-qualified" him, authorized unwilling effect "organized verdict" guilty. overwhelming death-qualified convict charges unalterable opponents permitted serve. stage demand culpability ("nullifiers") chance like noncapital cases—one tilted aware accused's quite bias. 52 With glib nonchalance ill suited gravity power upholds practice allows advantage prosecutions punishments, severe. announcement intends seek offense will, today's decision, license empanel especially verdict. I blatant disregard offends logic, fairness, Constitution, dissent. 53 * poses threat receive innocence. 1961, scholar "Jurors hesitant levy seem qualified 'pound flesh' approach." Oberer, Disqualification Jurors Scruples Against Capital Punishment Constitute Denial Fair Trial Issue Guilt?, L.Rev. 549 (1961). 54 When scrupled venire empirical corroborate Oberer's intuition. Brief Petitioner O.T.1967, 1015, pp. 28-33. issue, consisted preliminary summary study.1 Although certainly supported validity Witherspoon's conviction, firmest adjudication. result, reversed sentence, "the conviction," 518, 1775, declined Nonetheless, careful note 55 "[A] [a death-qualified] If succeed effort, arise submitting vindicated expense innocence—given accommodating interests using fix problem intimate resolution." 18. 56 wake researchers supplement inadequate exhaustively analyzed 1273, 1291-1308 (ED Ark.1983), briefly summarized here.2 strongly suggest qualification subset—at 11% 17%—of trial.3 Among excludable class disproportionate blacks women. 1283, 1293-1294. perspectives survive systematically Death-qualified are, example, failure testify indicative guilt, hostile insanity defense, mistrustful attorneys, concerned danger erroneous convictions. 1293, 1304. proprosecution reflected readiness charges. 1294-1302; 226, 233-236 1985). And, finally, qualification—which focuses attention begun—has predispose 1302-1305; 234. confirms, corroborated by, intuitive judgments scholars participants trials—judges, prosecutors. 1322.4 II A. course stronger showing prejudicial trials. Yet, until permits separate deliberate simultaneous verdicts, prejudice recourse proving recreations processes. 237 ("[I]t stood surveys real deficiency"). 60 chief strength lies essential unanimity obtained diverse subjects varied methodologies. haphazard jabs obscure array. Where corrected apparent investigations, subsequent work conclusions drawn earlier efforts. faulted failing distinguish -excludables, nullifiers (whom phase) Yet consistent indeed excluded. See, e.g., Cowan, Thompson, & Ellsworth, Effects Death Qualification Jurors' Predisposition Convict Quality Deliberation, Law Hum. Behav. And despite "allow deliberations," ante, 171, 10, underscored discovery initial preferences, made deliberations, predictor how faced room. 68-69; Hastie, S. Penrod, N. Pennington, Inside Jury 66 (1983); H. Kalven Zeisel, American 488 (1966). 61 "tentative presentation failed move Witherspoon. 517, 1774. contrast shows 'subjected testing mechanisms adversary process,' Ballew 435 223, 246, 1029, 1042, 334 (POWELL, concurring judgment). expert witnesses witness rebuttal. Testimony better methodologies limitations. Further impirical came hands witnesses. aduced noted: 'there contradict submitted [respondent]; words, documented district court's findings.' 238. B 62 impact devastating show. placed limits strike unless "unambiguously [they] reveal," 516, 9, 1773-1774, 9. nothing, prosecution's meet standard qualification. Gillers, Deciding Who Dies, 129 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1, 85, peremptories end, thereby expanding death-qualifying challenged People Velasquez, Cal.3d 425, 438, Cal.Rptr. 306, 313, 606 P.2d 341, 348, (1980) (prosecutor informed venireperson kick her off challenge"). "For five-year period studied prima facie demonstrated prosecutors Florida's Fourth Judicial Winick, Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenge Practices Cases: Empirical Study Constitutional Analysis, Mich.L.Rev. (1982).5 63 applications expanded cause. While generally classified -excludable unambiguous refusal circumstance, fastidious. appellate frequently expressions absolute Schnapper, Taking Seriously: Search Death-Qualified Jurors, 977, 993-1032 demanding approach surely become common (1985). Under attitude "unmistakably clear," 1777 nonetheless " 'prevent oath.' 433, 852 (quoting 45, 2526, (1980)). "seems Witt lead conviction-prone panels" 'scrupled' jurors—those unequivocal it—usually share pro-defendant perspective jurors." Finch Ferraro, Qualified Juries: Examination, Neb.L.Rev. (1986). C 64 Faced near authority supporting gives trials, majority makes weak effort contest proposition. merely assumes "that 'death qualification' 'conviction-prone' 'non-death-qualified' juries," 173, holds offend tragically misconstrues biased prosecution. III unalterably "might guilt." done just that. succeeded constituted guaranteed due Ristaino Ross, 424 589, 595, 1017, 1020, 258 (1976). need rely representing community.6 fell Rather, unconstitutional though nonbiased selection composed sat panel, 67 am puzzled difficulty understanding "logic argument." Ante, 178. For carried day repudiated Court—not taken word. selected. pool overturned declaring determination, reasoned, member requisite manner "stacked deck" him. 523, 1778. adopts level convict. 68 offers arguments rebut asserts "State's challenges." 182. argument, infringes innocence," indicates considered infringement found. second rejecting notion "neutrality" adumbrated confined 'imbalanced' jury." distinction untenable. 70 death-penalty offense, proceeding additional aggravating admissible. answer trial: "(1) conduct caused deceased committed reasonable expectation result; 72 "(2) probability commit acts violence continuing society; 73 "(3) killing unreasonable reponse provocation, deceased." Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 37.071(b) (Vernon Supp.1986). 40-41, 2524-2525. finds beyond "yes," sentence; "no" imprisonment. defined, exclude mandatory affect fact." Tex.Penal Code Ann. 12.31(b) (1974); 42, "process" statutory "is oaths." 2527. Consequently, conscious distortion bias," ibid., 75 "[who] aver honestly affirmative doubt, otherwise, frankly concede prospects honest deem doubt. assessments inherent deprive she law." message factfinding role, established bars skewing services Adams' called perform "are indistinguishable" Proving Prejudice Juries U.Pitt.L.Rev. 219, 247 Indeed, noted "see plausible guilt/innocence phase." 54, 2531 (dissenting). Contrary majority's suggestion, ante 183, reply oversight. something ascertain existence vel non specific historical assigned trial's different, critical determine inflicted fatal wound, charges, lesser count, appropriate. Representing community, stages "unavoidably 77 precedent applying analysis Witherspoon's. presumed unacceptably increase likelihood condemned death. gone further laid solid IV One assumptions demonstrate compelled 234 (1978), Court7 rendered five-person Amendments. reduce size six-member approved Williams 399 78, 1893, 446 (1970), articulated facets reduction "inhibit[ed] functioning institution significant degree." Ballew, 231, 1034. "recent data" suggested five-member "less foster deliberation" effectiveness inaccurate incorrect sense 232, 1035. advanced explanations phenomenon: "As decrease ., pieces argument. smaller group, overcome biases obtain accurate decisionmaking compared, seen performed prejudices counterbalanced, objectivity resulted." 233, 1035 cited suggesting verdicts deliberation vary smaller, variance amounts imbalance detriment side, defense." 236, 1037. Lastly, reductions foretell "for representation minority Each concerns misdemeanor implicated qualification, threatens stakes higher. compared deficient quality accuracy results, prosecution, adequately represent well plain sense, leave upsets "counterbalancing biases" among being 234, 1036. demonstrates person's indicator whole cluster crime control process." Fitzgerald Due Process vs. Crime Control: Attitudes, Hum.Behav. Members shown No diversity promotes controversy, turn closer scrutiny mixed [composed -excludables jurors] juries." Hum.Behav., 76. recall ordinary rigorous. 75. appears cases—those intention penalty—the impaired. 84 ascertaining alleged indictment, morally blameworthy. invariably included offenses factual predicates similar Beck Alabama, 447 625, 2382, difficult classify "accurate" "inaccurate." However, went simple questioned operated "detriment clarity show pattern "biased decisionmaking," 239, 1039. accept word lower proof peers. Whether depends absent host factors. U.Pitt.L.Rev., 232-238. importance focusing met end mistrial compromise verdict, "it confidently time, crimes offenses—and higher degree—who convicted" Hovey Superior 25, 57, 168 128, 141, 616 1301, 1314, 86 implicates groups. prevalent whites, disproportionately Though Amendment's magnitude "constitutional significance" 1038. White, "Prosecution Proneness" Argument Reexamined, 353, 387-389 87 assessing identifying subsumed interest, pointed drawing sort constitutes trial—a acceptable justified created particularly look askance panels. struck Tr. Oral Arg. 26. limitation blind occurs refusing 89 predisposes exposure needed "increased subjects' estimate convicted." Haney, Selection Biasing Death-Qualification Process, 121, 128 Hovey, Cal.3d, 73, Cal.Rptr., 176, P.2d, 1349. independent violation, "[T]he function additively worsen already distorted process. ." Examining Qualification: Analysis Effect, 133, 151 attributed ----, 7. overlooks, ease themselves proceeding. Potential asked, "if why try II, 1310.8 attributable current concluding "interest innocence." V recognized, accommodated infringing uses "one punishment." Any opponents, await subordination rights. invokes efficient management proceedings profit troubling justifications unconvincing. offensive. 93 saving "court financial costs" size. 243-244, 1040-41. costs high. 94 "First, relatively small necessary smaller. occur authorizes punishment, prosecutor decides sought. occur, impaneling new necessary. alternate replace 'automatic imprisonment' trial." Mich.L.Rev., 57. phases, resources saved extensive scheme conducted could, start required. opted cheaper empaneling event avoid retrying entire Stipulated summaries might, save time. prohibitive, significant. convincing appeal "may best interests, specious option waive paternalistic protection exchange odds conviction." Neb.L.Rev., 69. few times legitimacy facing factor innocent. routinely empaneled depriving authorizing resentencing reassessment culpability, waste error-free wishes reimpose 1983 Ark.Gen.Act 546, 3, following Ark.Rev.Stat.Ann. 41-1358 (Supp.1985). ill-behooves allude refused holding proceedings. Burr 879, 201, 170 (MARSHALL, denial certiorari); Heiney 920, 303, (1984) Burford 403 So.2d 943 (Fla.1981), 454 1164, 1039, 320 (1982). disingenuous. cruel. VI occasion, declared obvious—that seeks severely punished code, "diminish[es] reliability determination" down. 638, 2390. spite declarations, help thinking prevailing claims challenging peculiar refuse operates convict, "ritualistic adherence" "talismanic" forth footnote opinion. 419, 850. quoting misnomer. Nevertheless, parties James Grigsby, consolidated, died became moot. 1277, 2. Dewayne Hulsey, third Grigsby's McCree's, procedurally barred, Sykes, 433 72, 2497, (1977), asserting Hulsey Sargent, 550 179 Ark.1981). findings "clearly erroneous" Rule Civil Procedure 52(a). ultimately base today invalidity courts' findings, "standard review" issue. persuaded, 52(a) kind "legislative" Dunagin City Oxford, Mississippi, 718 738, 748, banc) (plurality Reavley, J.). evidenced Appeals, reviewing contrary 1984) (disagreeing relationship jurors), 84-6187. described "conviction-proneness surveys": Some Data Juror Attitudes Toward (University Chicago Monograph 1968) (Zeisel); W. Wilson, Belief Performance (unpublished manuscript, University 1964) (Wilson); Goldberg, Expansion Scruples, Bias, Use Psychological Raise Presumptions Law, Harv.Civ. Rights-Civ.Lib.L.Rev. (1970) (Goldberg); Jurow, Effect Qualified" Guilt Determination Harv.L.Rev. 567 (1971) (Jurow); (Cowan-Deliberation). Harris Survey 1971. Louis Associates, Inc., 2016 (Harris-1971). "attitudinal demographic Bronson, Conviction Proneness Representativeness Jury: Colorado Veniremen, U.Colo.L.Rev. (1970); Exclusion Scrupled Cases Make More Likely Convict? Evidence California, Woodrow Wilson L.J. (1980); Precision Research, 1286 (1981). Harrington, Penalty Proneness, Bukaty, Defense Insanity, Young, Archival (unpublished, 1981); Harris, Gallup, National Opinion Research Center polls 1953 1981. 121 Ipso facto, opportunity Goldberg prepublication draft Zeisel study. 1774, 10; supra. Harris-1971 polled 2,068 adults throughout Cowan-Deliberation 288 jury-eligible residents San Mateo Santa Clara Counties Jurow 211 employees Sperry Rand Corporation York. deliberation, measured responses. refers "essential unanimity" socialscience academics assertion 6. articles relied candidly acknowledges, rest "[a] amount conjecture" willingness transform behavioral suspicions doctrine." authors article explain: "[U]ncertainty inheres aspect operation, method deliberative reached. So seventeen definitive frequency "Nor research add phenomenon proneness probably unmeasurable, complexity adjudication." 66-67 Only "nullifiers." flaw approximately 37% intimated J.), involve BLACKMUN's announcing judgment, opinions agreed Georgia's five "prevents communities," 396-397, 173-174 dispute substantial. 74-79. intent "waive" obtained. implications assertion, scarcely novel one; Logan 144 263, 617, (1892), courts, commenting followed "by arisen." 298, 628. dissent's "no (REHNQUIST, Towards 1968), "not underlay conclusions, themselves." 30, 63, 144, 1317, Most comprehensively California accounted possible, Kadane, After Hovey: Note Account Automatic 115 (using classification approximating -excludable); appropriate 93% overlap "strongly opposed" Bronson -excludables); Jury" (finding 10% sample excludable, underestimated 99% 80% male); (random screened 17% ); 1981) (14% transcripts excludable); (1981) (11% counting nullifiers); 1285; 231 "need implications" qualifying' 'waive' obtained." 16. If, this, intended us, gladly join effort. indications success sweep certainty tactical ruse, abuse 483 1372, 1389, Ark.1980) (Grigsby ) (suggesting initially get conviction-prone, jury). Cf. 555, 45b (reporting "without hope obtained"). point, remedy 102, concurring). Without allowed information expand peremptories. 8, infra. discussion portion of, right. desired interaction place venire; effectuated issues." McCray 461 961, 968, 2438, 2442-2443, 1322 (1983) Abrams, 750 1113, 1128-1129 (CA2 84-1426. absolutely soon group. occurred place. pursuant effect—and rights—would cosigned Justices specifically joined "insofar contain persons." 1042 BRENNAN, Stewart JJ.). Restriction root biases, great pose Turner Murray, 28, 1683, 1692 part part).

Category: 0