Document: 421 U.S. 794 95 S.Ct. 2031. 44 L.Ed.2d 589 Jack Roland MURPHY, Petitioner,v.State of FLORIDA. No. 74—5116. Argued April 15, 1975. Decided June 16, Syllabus Petitioner, who was convicted in state court robbery contends this habeas corpus proceeding that he denied a fair trial because jurors had learned from news accounts prior felony convictions or certain facts about the charge. In course jury selection 78 members panel were questioned, 70 being excused (30 for personal reasons, 20 peremptorily, and by as having prejudged petitioner), eight selected (including two alternates). The District Court Appeals relief. Held: 1. Juror exposure to information defendant's crime with which is charged not alone presumptively deprive defendant due process. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 717, 81 1639, 6 751; Rideau Louisiana, 373 723, 83 1417, 10 663; Estes Texas, 381 532, 85 1628, 14 543; Sheppard Maxwell, 384 333, 86 1507, 16 600, distinguished. Pp. 797-799. 2. voir dire case indicates no such juror hostility petitioner suggest partiality could be laid aside. Though some vaguely recalled each knowledge petitioner's past crimes, none betrayed any belief relevance roberry past, there indication circumstances surrounding number prejudgment petitioner, inflamed community sentiment counter indicia impartiality disclosed transcript. Thus, totality circumstances, failed show inherent prejudice setting actual jury-selection 799-803. 5 Cir., 495 F.2d 553, affirmed. Harvey S. Swickle, Miami Beach, Fla., petitioner. William L. Rogers, Miami, respondent, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion 1 question presented whether conviction charged. Under case, we find has been process, therefore affirm judgment below. 2 * Petitioner Dade County, Criminal 1970 breaking entering home, while armed, intent commit assault robbery. charges stemmed January 1968 Beach home apprehension, three others, fleeing scene. 3 arrest received extensive press coverage much before. He first made himself notorious his part 1964 theft Star India sapphire museum New York. His flamboyant lifestyle him continuing subject interest; generally referred to—at least media—as 'Murph Surf.' 4 Before date set on instant charges, indicted counts murder Broward Fla. Thereafter County declared mentally incompetent stand trial; committed hospital prosecutor nolle prossed indictment. August federal grand conspiring transport stolen securities interstate commerce. After adjudged competent trial, one count (March 1969) pleaded guilty indictment involving (December 1969). refiled 1969 came year later. events drew coverage. Each new against considered newsworthy, only but elsewhere well.1 record contains scores articles reporting trials tribulations during period; many purportedly relate statements attorney reporters. Jury present began 1970. Seventy-eight questioned. Of these, 30 miscellaneous reasons; peremptorily defense prosecution; petitioner; remaining served alternates. Petitioner's motions dismiss chosen jurors, ground they aware previously either murder, denied, renewed motion change venue based allegedly prejudicial pretrial publicity. 7 At did testify put evidence; assertedly protest jury, cross-examine State's witnesses. both counts, after an unsuccessful appeal sought relief Southern Florida. 8 relief, D.C.Fla., 363 F.Supp. 1224 (1973), Fifth Circuit 553 (1974). We granted certiorari, 419 1088, 677, 42 680 (1974), order resolve apparent conflict between decision below Third United States ex rel. Doggett Yeager, 472 229 over applicability Marshall States, 360 310, 79 1171, 1250 (1959), criminal proceedings. II 9 dispensing drugs without prescription. seven exposed various relating forgery, wife arrested other narcotics offenses, time practiced medicine license. interviewing however, judge mistrial, relying jurors' assurances maintain spite articles. Noting high potential prejudice, reversed conviction. It so, expressly '(i)n exercise (its) supervisory power formulate apply proper standards enforcement law courts,' matter constitutional compulsion. Id., at 313, S.Ct., 1173. 11 face so clear statement, it cannot maintained ruling now applicable, through Fourteenth Amendment, States. argues, nonetheless more recent decisions have applied cases principle underlying decision:2 persons sources are presumed prejudiced. agree application beyond courts. 12 relies principally upon 751 (1961), 663 (1963), 543 (1965), 600 (1966). these cases, overturned state-court obtained atmosphere utterly corrupted 13 Dowd rural held subjected barrage inflammatory publicity immediately including convictions, confession 24 burglaries six murders tried, unaccepted offer plead avoid death sentence. As result, formed before began; went 'so far say would take evidence overcome their belief' guilt. U.S., 728, 1645. readily found degree rendered impossible. Prejudice under Rideau, Estes, held. those influence media, large courtroom itself, pervaded 'confessed' police interrogation stood convicted. A 20-minute film broadcast times television station where took place. reversing, examine review 'but hollow formality'—the real occurred when tens thousands people, 150,000, seen heard admit guilt cameras. 15 conducted circus atmosphere, intrusions press, allowed sit within bar overrun equipment. Similarly, arose infected background extremely also courthouse given accommodate public appetite carnival. proceedings entirely lacking solemnity sobriety entitled system subscribes notion fairness rejects verdict mob. They proposition deprives To must turn, therefore, indications fundamentally fair. III standard requires 'a impartial, 'indifferent' jurors.' 722, 1642. Qualified need not, totally ignorant issues involved. 17 'To hold mere existence preconceived innocence accused, more, sufficient rebut presumption prospective juror's establish impossible standard. if can lay aside impression render court.' 18 same time, equal task dispositive accused's rights, remains open demonstrate 'the mind will raise partiality.' Ibid. 19 Some vague recollection crimes,3 case.4 Indeed, four volunteered views its irrelevance, suggested people trouble too often singled out suspicion crime—a predisposition operate favor. entire transcript furnished us, colloquy base even colorable claim juror. response leading hypothetical question, presupposing two- three-week presentation failure defense, conceded dispose convict.5 attach great significance light nature counsel's questions testimony indicating deep all. 21 testified keep up current and, fact, never until arrived room veniremen discussing him. know jewel thief' then; counsel informed fact. And conviction, just heard, relevant since '(w)e trying murder.' 22 Even might disregarded general sufficiently inflammatory, all variety. attempts portray them reference exposed. found, concerning appeared almost period December 1967 1969, latter months selected. F.Supp., 1228. were, moreover, largely factual nature. Compare Beck Washington, 369 541, 82 955, 98 (1962), supra. 23 length go select appear impartial another factor evaluating impartiality. most disqualifying reliability others' protestations may drawn into question; then probable deeply hostile likely unwittingly influenced it. example, noted 90% examined point inclined believe guilt, cause 268 430 veniremen. contrast, questioned indicated guilt.6 This indeed than occur obscure person, means suggests poisoned impeach indifference displayed animus own. sum, unable conclude, receive trial. inherently process complains permits inference prejudice. 25 Judgment 26 Chief BURGER, concurring judgment. 27 I BRENNAN woefully remiss failing insulate bizarre media taking steps prevent discussion among them. Although hesitate reverse our powers, case. rise level violation Due Process Clause Amendment. 28 BRENNAN, dissenting. 29 dissent. reversal here risk taint widespread regarding background, known jury's deliberations apparent, attempt previous exploits freely admitted predisposed convict During dire, following juror: 31 'Q. Now, you decide Murphy's innocence, going account fact murderer; aren't you? 32 'A. Not listening wouldn't. 33 But it? 34 How 35 Fine, thank you. 36 'When room, murderer, your verdict; not? 37 murder. 38 murderer thief, verdict? didn't thief. 39 Oh, see. 40 'I am sorry words mouth. 41 'Now, sir, weeks locked downtown hotel, determines, hearing behalf Murphy, Murphy saying, innocent, (Juror)'—when imagine be. 43 saying testify, doesn't evidence, 'My experience right guilty.' so.' 45 obvious bias overlooked simply occasioned 'leading question,' ante, 801. became reality chose offered evidence. Thus tried predisposed, one. 46 Others ultimately revealed similar toward dire. One difficult, deliberations, criminal. 'hold felon regard person felony,' further termed 'menace.' 47 third she knew several murderer,1 regarded 'should away.' She disclaimed fixed result reach, acknowledged probably her verdict: Probably not. 48 right? 49 Probably.' 50 Still comments venire 'sick (his) stomach.' venireman said 'thoroughly rotten,' said: 'Hang him, he's guilty.'2 51 Moreover, ignores crucial daily buildup instruct discuss themselves. Indeed discussed last exploits. 52 moment try exclude misdeeds reputation. like little weight attached selfserving protestations: 53 No doubt sincere psychological impact requiring declaration one's fellows father. Where many, times, statement weight. it, 'You can't forget what hear see." 54 On conclusion me inescapable attitude reflected 'then pattern thought popular media,' id., 725, 1644, view 'criminal' plain extent caused excluding preconception difficult honestly impartial.' Bloeth Denno, 313 364, 372 (CA2 1963). my view, denial error, See, e.g., York Times, May 9, 1968, p. (surrender indictment); July 3, (held trial); Aug. (indicted case); Feb, 18, (murder scheduled); Mar. 2, 63 (convicted murder). theory adopted Deggett (1973). sapphire, counsel, asked discount insofar crimes comes counsel. note also, disapprove habitual references client, Surf' rather name. distinguish familiarity distinguished invidious inflammatory. E.g., 556, 963, (1962). ignore differences advance fundamental fairness, make timely prosecution well community, merely prominent. exchange appears App. 139: (juror's name),'—when If reasons exhibited claimed. stated acquired portion article week's Herald entitled, 'Defense Exhausts Challenges Trial,' included sentence: 'Jury continue today beach boy hoodlum serving life sentence connection Whisky Creek slaying secretaries 1968.' deliberate fellow consider thief? Well, So, guess would— You verdict, Right. say, would. concerned wouldn't print When Murph Surf; thief—you mind, tell you; you, ma'am? alternate 'would give treatment killer (she) person.' added case: is, compromise there—and State proved insane, but, 'I'm let guy walk streets, I'm guilty, period?' 'Would do that? don't point. 'So ma'am, us deliberation one, lack two, Murphy; isn't fact? Yes.'

Category: 0