Document: 451 U.S. 182 101 S.Ct. 1629 68 L.Ed.2d 22 Humberto ROSALES-LOPEZ, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 79-6624. Argued Jan. 12, 1981. Decided April 21, Syllabus Petitioner, who is of Mexican descent, was tried in Federal District Court for his participation a plan by which aliens were smuggled into the country. Another participant plan, one Bowling, apparently Caucasian with whose daughter petitioner had been living. Prior to trial, requested that judge, voir dire examination prospective jurors, ask question as possible prejudice toward Mexicans. The judge refused such question, but did questions concerning against aliens. Petitioner subsequently convicted, and Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioner's challenge trial judge's refusal jurors about racial or ethnic bias. Held : judgment affirmed. Pp. 188-194; 194-195. 9 Cir., 617 F.2d 1349, Justice WHITE, joined STEWART, BLACKMUN, POWELL, concluded there no reversible error afforded petitioner. 188-194. (a) Because obligation impanel an impartial jury lies first instance because he must rely largely on immediate perceptions, federal judges have accorded ample discretion determining how best conduct dire. "Special circumstances" under Constitution requires questioning bias exist only when issues are inextricably bound up substantial indications likelihood affecting particular case. See Ristaino v. Ross, 424 589, 96 1017, 47 258; Ham South Carolina, 409 524, 93 848, 35 46. Under this Court's supervisory power over courts, failure honor defendant's request inquire prejudice, where inquiry not constitutionally mandated, circumstances case indicate "reasonable possibility" might influence jury. courts make defendant accused violent crime victim members different groups. Ristaino, supra; Aldridge United States, 283 308, 51 470, 75 L.Ed. 1054. 188-192. (b) In case, "special constitutional dimension requiring bias, since involve allegations prejudice. And reveal criminal act group from defendant. Nor external would jury's evaluation evidence. 192-194. REHNQUIST, Chief BURGER, concurring result, decision rested primarily court, subject case-by-case review appellate even "violent crimes" John J. Cleary, San Diego, Cal., George W. Jones, Los Angeles, respondent, pro hac vice, special leave Court. WHITE announced delivered opinion, POWELL joined. 1 here whether it court reject court's further possibility 2 * descent. February 1979, before States Southern California alleged three illegally brought country.1 3 Government's evidence at described following events. On night December 10, 1978, led across Mexican-American border taken car, previously left them American side. They drove Imperial Beach, town eight miles inside border. Early morning 11, they reached home Virginia Hendricks admitted garage house Bowling citizen, Caucasian, living Beach her 19-year-old daughter. Bowling's mother's July 1978. 4 Later morning, hid their guide trunk green Oldsmobile. Oldsmobile north, through Clemente check-point, while followed grey Ford. After passing checkpoint, exchanged cars. proceeded Angeles returned went apartment agents Immigration Naturalization Service surveillance several weeks suspected drop site illegal Upon arrival, let out told go Shortly thereafter, arrested 5 At INS agents, aliens, David Falcon-Zavala, another named principal smuggling arrangement petitioner, testified Government. testify; defense principally credibility Government witnesses. convicted him all charges Ninth Circuit 1349 (1980). 6 counsel formally be allowed personally same time, filed list 26 ask, if denied motion. Among submitted directed Mexicans: 7 "Would you consider race descent Rosales-Lopez your case? How affect you? 8 As permitted Rule 24 Rules Criminal Procedure pursuant practice California, conducted himself. He asked half petitioner.2 Although any specifically attitudes substantive involved: "Do feelings alien problem all?" rephrased this: way other could sit fair juror called upon do so?" App. 17-18.3 began general statement panel: "In order shall try him, necessary we address certain panel sure underlying prejudices, reasons why can't chosen so case." Id., 14. 10 ended following: 11 "Does reason occur anyone juror, whatsoever?" 21. 12 Following dire, restated respect six questions, including prejudice.4 argued side bar 1054 (1931), "must explore antagonism my client happens descent." 25. declined panel. Peremptory challenges then exercised sworn. 13 appealed, unsuccessfully challenging ethic bias.5 noted 14 "[a] longstanding rule justice . regarding should put venire prosecutions minority defendants, least 'special circumstances' may factor trial." F.2d, 1354. 15 "[t]he extent unclear." Ibid. It concluded, however, contain circumstances." 16 Courts adopted conflicting rules will constitute error. Some Circuits per se rule, reversal whenever fails member group. Bowles 574 970 (CA8 1978); Robinson, 485 1157 (CA3 1973); Carter, 440 1132 (CA6 1971); Gore, 435 1110 (CA4 1970); Fraiser 267 62 (CA1 1959). Other Circuits, Ninth, rejected holding required pose some indication likely overtones Polk, 550 1265 (CA10 1977); Perez-Martinez 525 365 (CA9 1975). light diversity views, granted certiorari. 449 819, 71, 66 II 17 Voir plays critical function assuring Sixth Amendment right honored. Without adequate responsibility remove able impartially follow instructions evaluate cannot fulfilled. Connors 158 408, 413, 951, 953, 39 1033 (1895). Similarly, lack impairs exercise peremptory provided statute courts.6 18 Despite its importance, adequacy easily review. point unlike later trial. Both reach conclusions impartiality relying own evaluations demeanor responses questions. 595, 1020, 258 (1976), quoting Rideau Louisiana, 373 723, 733, 83 1417, 1422, 663 (1963) (Clark, J., dissenting). neither can second-guess decision-maker heard observed 19 recognized broad role court: "[T]he asked." 310, S.Ct., 471. also 528, 851, 46 (1973) (recognizing "the traditionally conducting ."). Furthermore, 24(a), Procedure, provides decide itself allow parties it. If conducts it, "supplement [the court] deems proper"; alternatively, limit submission additional "as proper." 20 There are, requirements supra, contrasting facts those held state fail question. 21 involved black charged drug offense. His law enforcement officers "framed" retaliation active, widely known, civil rights activities. present Ham, "inextricably trial," consequent need, circumstances, assure U.S., 596, 597, 1021. confrontation between assailant white victim, fact pattern alone create need "constitutional dimensions" 1021, 1022. presumption demonstrates, n. 8, 8. Only more does denial examine jurors' ability deal amount unconstitutional abuse discretion. Absent leaves judicial system within operates, determine system, indicated our authority require discovery mandated. 9, 9. 23 Determination appropriate nonconstitutional standard depend comparison concrete costs benefits application entail. These slight: delay versus occasional unqualified otherwise discovered. is, significant conflict issue here—one involving appearance courts. hand, every impression "that turn pigmentation skin [or] accident birth." Trial understandably hesitant introduce suggestion courtrooms. Aldridge, 471; 591, 1018. Balanced this, perception avoiding eliminate problem, place elevate reality. We confronted what said remains true today: 25 "The argument advanced behalf detrimental administration religious prejudices. think far injurious permit thought persons entertaining disqualifying serve inquiries designed elicit disqualification barred. No surer devised bring processes disrepute." 314-315, 473. judgment, usually resolve making determination prefer pursued.7 Failure request, reasonable influenced 27 "propound identify defendant." 1022, made clear result based 598, 10. embraced, murdering policeman. both cases 28 together, fairly imply This consistent standard" articulated above. unfortunate society crimes perpetrated groups often raise possibility. suggest inquiry, total III 29 Evaluated these standards, has matters prejudice: nor allegations. were, then, Neither fact, victimless crime: aiding gain entry States. therefore, falls category For two reasons, believe demonstrated 30 First, reasonably determined juror's questioned doubt understood include excused cause, Removing eliminated, believe, remaining undisclosed Mexicans disclosed questioning.8 31 Second, contends "any latent antagonism" exacerbated testimony relationship failed support Even had, operation substantially corroborated witnesses presented Government, Falcon-Zavala differences key witness situation meeting set not, than did. 32 hold Therefore, denying 33 So ordered. 34 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, joins, result. I agree plurality today most reasoning. cannot, embrace language contained last paragraph Part opinion perceived creating conviction crime" district disagree toto paragraph, fear use term "different groups" apt spawn new litigation meaning terms properly assessed infecting selection undoubtedly groups, But knowing contentiousness profession, precise definition ever arrived me unwilling lay down flat seems proposed II. victims groups," "remains courts." ante, 192. view, inappropriate us always solely "violent." finding harmless error, well embraced footnote plurality's opinion. 36 seen, great, beseeched many appeals reverse procedural play part factfinding process somewhat plurality, nature things, "bright line" rules, avoid definitions define clarify hence invite litigation. quite conceivable thoroughly competent fairminded conclude asking devotion time exacerbate whatever without exposing 37 STEVENS, BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 38 whether, must, belongs. Settled simple answer question.1 contains parts: holds "federal groups." Ante, affirms Appeals. Heretofore, defendant, regardless presence absence indicating learned inadequate, respectfully dissent. 40 An tribunal indispensable element re Murchison, 349 133, 136, 623, 625, 99 942; Irvin Dowd, 366 717, 722, 81 1639, 1642, 751.2 Before citizen peers, potential essential. Such arise sources: reaction individual unrelated Much wish otherwise, acknowledge harbor strong prejudices racial, religious, hostility whole.3 connected transaction unusual risk Nazi Party Jewish 41 1931, 1054, addressed protecting defendants among jurors. That decided vacuum. Rather, long line state-court decisions murder, police officer, reasoning Hughes' Court, opinions quoted length, relied circumstances. character explained quotation text appended footnotes discussing leading Florida, Mississippi, North Texas, Carolina: 42 propriety generally recognized. Pinder State, Fla. 370, So. 837, sought 'Could give negro, man, advantage protection man evidence?' Supreme Florida reversed conviction.1 Hill 112 Miss. 260, 72 1003, Mississippi fatal refuse negro murder question: 'Have got induce return verdict less slighter guilty circumstances?' Carolina 'he believed could, equal State colored man.' McAfee, 64 N.C. 339.2 See, also, Fendrick Tex.Cr. 147, 45 S.W. 589; Sanders, 103 S.C. 216, 88 S.E. 43 "1 said: 'Though express above cited' (McClellan's Digest, § p. 446) 'yet pertinent, and, think, proper test fully existence minds vital import defendant; too, existent, locked entirely breasts propounded; knowledge acquired interrogating affirmative worked harm else, done credit humanity intelligence satisfactorily exhibited entire competency, involved. But, negative, hesitancy saying shown wholly unfit incompetent race, guaranteed constitution laws, whitest Christendom. incompetency asserts superadded force life death tip scale hands adjustment.' 44 "2 (at 340): 'It essential purity jury, free mind poisoned kind, resulting passion, Here, Honor qualifications. Suppose allowed, answered, show prisoner, especially character, once seen grossly box.' " 311-313, nn. 1, 2, 471-472, 2. To construed applicable Hughes added paragraph: mind, upheld races relation serious character. Potter 86 380, 384, 216 886; People Reyes, Cal. 347, 349; Watson Whitney, 375, 379; Car Soy, 57 102; Horst Silverman, Wash. 233, 234, 55 P. 52. assault intent commit Know Nothing party, oath resulted independent entertained prevent giving trial.3 48 49 reasoning, surprising overwhelming majority Judges interpreted establishing firm entitling specific case.4 read 1973,5 message equally 1981.6 rest infect venire.7 although broader significance. "perceive applied restrictively precedent rests." 1110, 1112 1970). Accordingly, join decline interracial violence. 50 view rise related matter evaluate. However, inadequate ignored prejudiced simply person lawyer irrational District, granted.8 count conspiracy conceal, shield, transport violation U.S.C. 371 1324; counts abetting transportation 1324(a)(2) 2; concealing, harboring, shielding 1324(a)(3). participants trial; outside case; physical impairments interfere responsibilities jurors; legal training; disagreement principle presumed innocent. Each basic himself herself, name, occupation, spouse's occupation. Two five were: "Have employed friends aliens?" Government? so, what? long?" crime?" sat What verdict?" "Are speak Spanish? well? Would willing accept interpreter's translation?" appeal, challenged provide copy transcript suppression hearing, sentencing procedure evidentiary hearing prosecutorial vindictiveness, instruction lesser-included offense, imposing consecutive sentences, constitutionality 1324. contentions. Swain Alabama, 380 202, 85 824, 759 (1965), connection challenges: trials tends extensive probing, operating predicate peremptories ." 218-219, 835. requirement permitted, used deemed important aspect 219, Of course, defer rational seeking reality claims meaningful difference ordinarily satisfied. note grounds "fair impartial" Coupled little answered affirmatively narrowly "For four decades, veniremen minority. (1931)." Powers, 482 941, 944 1973) (emphasis original), cert. denied, 415 923, 94 1426, 479. A arises principles due process. 6, 258. pervasive community drawn large concern serious. 314, 473, 1054: "But dominant sentiment accused. sharing sentiment, found impartial, permitting question; entertain preclude rendering verdict, gross injustice allowing sit." "3 349): 'As knows condition satisfactory conclusion at, resort Applying ascertain unless similar foregoing propounded him? 'Prejudice being frequently founded passion reason, cause; (if affirmative), lead deny party simplest method ascertaining probably, fathoming thoughts feelings. foreigners manner imperil law, say harmless. If, oaths, obligations foreigner known.' 313-314, 3, 472-473, 3. Then, end again limited arising case: Frasier 62, 1959); King 124 U.S.App.D.C. 138, 139, 362 968, 969 (1966); 1111-1113 1132, 1134-1135 Bamberger, 456 1119, 1129 1972), sub nom. Crapps 406 969, 92 2424, 668; 466 780, 781-782 (CA7 1972); Booker, 480 1310, 1310-1311 1973), 479; 1157, 1158-1160 Johnson, 527 1104, 1106-1107 1975); Bell, 573 1040, 1042-1043 Bowles, 970, 971-973 Williams, 612 735, 736-737 1979), 445 934, 100 1328, 63 770. Cf. Kuzniak Taylor Supply Co., 471 702, 703 Grant, 494 120, 122-123, (CA2 1974), 419 849, 95 87, 79; Bear Runner, 502 908, 911-913 1974). supra. 258, inconsistent interpretation Aldridge. defined expressly require, power, required. Constitution. supra ; Fourth Circuit, examined cited whatsoever. 1111-1112. discussion indicates established "a precludes reaching verdict." 1111. 969. duty dependent phrasing counsel. 311, that, formulate "why juror," see 186, substitute inquiry; advised nothing else. e. g., 1134-1135; 782.

Category: 0