Document: 391 U.S. 510 88 S.Ct. 1770 20 L.Ed.2d 776 William C. WITHERSPOON, Petitioner,v.STATE OF ILLINOIS et al. No. 1015. Argued April 24, 1968. Decided June 3, Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, See 89 67. [Syllabus from pages 510-511 intentionally omitted] Albert E. Jenner, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Donald J. Veverka, Westchester, respondent. James B. Zagel, respondent, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. Robert R. Granucci, San Francisco, Calif., the State California, as amicus curiae. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion 1 The petitioner was brought to trial in 1960 Cook County, Illinois, upon a charge murder. jury found him guilty and fixed his penalty at death. At time an Illinois statute provided: 2 'In trials murder it shall be cause challenge any juror who shall, on being examined, state that he has conscientious scruples against capital punishment, or is opposed same.'1 3 Through this provision armed prosecution with unlimited challenges order exclude those jurors who, words State's highest court, 'might hesitate return verdict inflicting (death).'2 petitioner's trial, eliminated nearly half venire prospective challenging, under authority statute, venireman expressed qualms about punishment. From remained were chosen ultimately sentenced Supreme Court denied post-conviction relief,3 we granted certiorari4 decide whether Constitution permits execute man pursuant so composed. I. 4 issue before us narrow one. It does not involve right their reservations punishment would prevent them making impartial decision defendant's guilt.5 Nor assertion case say they could never vote impose death refuse even consider its imposition them. For did stop there, but authorized well all said indicated had it. 5 In present tone set when judge early voir dire, 'Let's get these objectors out way, without wasting them.' rapid succession, 47 veniremen successfully challenged basis attitudes toward penalty. Only five explicitly stated no circumstances punishment.6 Six 'believe penalty' excused attempt determine nonetheless death.7 Thirtynine veniremen, including four six believe acknowledged having 'conscientious religious infliction 'in proper case' excluded effort find invariably compel 6 one admitted 'a scruple examined length. She asked: 'You don't penalty?' replied: 'No. It's just I wouldn't want responsible.' admonished her forget 'duty citizen' again asked she scruple' This time, replied negative. Moments later, however, repeated 'like responsible * deciding somebody should put death.'8 Evidently satisfied elaboration juror's views disqualified told 'step aside.'9 II. 7 contends cannot confer selected matter power guilt. He maintains such jury, unlike random crosssection community, must necessarily biased favor conviction, kind unperturbed prospect sending death, contends, too readily ignore presumption innocence, accept prosecution's version facts, To support view, refers what describes 'competent scientific evidence death-qualified are partial guilt innocence.'10 8 data adduced petitioner, tentative fragmentary establish tend determination guilt.11 We simply con clude, either record now judicial notice, exclusion results unrepresentative substantially increases risk conviction. light presently available information, prepared announce per se constitutional rule requiring reversal every conviction returned was. III. 9 follow, entitled relief. entrusted two distinct responsibilities: first, innocent guilty; second, if guilty, sentence imprisonment death.12 been shown respect But self-evident that, role arbiter imposed, fell woefully short impartiality which Sixth Fourteenth Amendments. Glasser v. United States, 315 60, 84—86, 62 457, 471—472, 86 L.Ed. 680; Irvin Dowd, 366 717, 722—723, 81 1639, 1642 1643, 751; Turner Louisiana, 379 466, 471—473, 85 546, 549—550, 13 424. 10 only justification offered jury-selection technique employed here individuals express serious relied laws instructions make other States,13 given broad discretion 'the case, general play inevitable decision. 11 A opposes penalty, less than favors it, can discretionary judgment thus obey oath takes juror. men have perform task demanded Guided neither nor standard, 'free select reject (sees) fit,'14 choose between life do little more—and nothing less—than conscience community ultimate question death.15 Yet, nation whose people penalty,16 composed exclusively speak community. Culled harbor doubts wisdom punishment—of reluctant pronounce extreme penalty—such dwindling minority.17 12 If advance returning argue resulting 'neutral' penalty.18 swept principle, crossed line neutrality. quest capable imposing produced uncommonly willing condemn die.19 is, course, settled may entrust tribunal 'organized convict.' Fay People New York, 332 261, 294, 67 1613, 1630, 91 2043. Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 437, 71 749. requires step principle hold, today, live die organized death.20 Specifically, hold carried imposed recommended excluding because voiced objections infliction.21 No defendant constitutionally hands selected.22 14 Whatever else might least clear hanging squared Constitution. stacked deck deprive due process law. 15 Reversed. 16 DOUGLAS. 17 My difficulty important eliminate juries some penalty; allows serve scruples, nevertheless deemed able after finding lesser imposed. fail see understand dimensions distinctions. 18 'impartially drawn cross-section community,' systematic intentional qualified groups, use Murphy's dissent 296, 1631, 19 involved union leaders extortion, 'blue ribbon' weighted propertied more likely convict certain kinds crimes. 5—4, Murphy speaking Black, Rutledge, myself: 'There group uneducated unintelligent persons. there solely lower end economic social scale. represents And includes persons varying degrees training intelligence positions. Under our Constitution, made representative most intelligent, wealthy successful, successful. democratic institution, classes people.' Id., 299—300, S.Ct., 1633. 21 idea community'1 certainly mean selection predisposition severest possible. 22 problem presented different postures several types laws. Many specifically grant penalty;2 some, exercised convened returned.3 first degree unless recommends mercy imprisonment,4 although States allowed (or manslaughter, law murder), will permit, regard formal charge.5 mandatory crimes.6 still others, abolished whole part.7 few rules fit precisely into above categories.8 23 fair produce almost found; subject many variables, attitude sentence. particular overwhelmingly exercise representing things depending type governing it: avoid recommending offense. 24 instance, why accused benefit controlling community? Why fate enthusiastic undecided not, how felt case? 25 inflict defendant. Exclusion means protagonists neutral concerning That deprivation both 26 Logan 144 263, 298, 617, 628, 36 429, held rightly cause, stating prevented 'from standing indifferent government accused, trying according *.' federal prosecution, requirement 'an jury' provided Amendment, applicable reason incorporation Jury Clause Amendment Due Process Fourteenth. Duncan 145, 1444, 491. 27 where leaves fixing provides recommendation gives degree, great leeway. Those try 'according evidence,' contain inexorable command eye eye.' Rather law' jury. setting case9 rule. Whether states defensible need reach. Where my opinion, improper weeding members recommend mercy.10 28 Challenges peremptory conflict 'impartial jury.' guaranteed Such generally highly individualized depriving entire class various shades 'subtle interplay influence' another. Ballard 329 187, 193, 264, 181. punishment,11 wholesale makes up substantial portion population12 produces jury.13 29 Although reverses declines reverse rendered same ground demonstrated convicted 'less guilt,' ante, 520, n. 18, fails guilt.' Ante, 518. require showing specific prejudice deprived 195, 265, 181; Ware 123 U.S.App.D.C. 34, 356 F.2d 787 (1965). easily assume absence rob peculiar qualities human nature women juries. U.S., 193—194, 264. likelihood prejudice, feel proceed assumption many, most, cases basic beliefs result times precise measurement. Indeed, 'is subtle, intangible, escapes ordinary methods proof.' 300, 1633 (dissenting opinion). essence 30 BLACK, whom HARLAN WHITE join, dissenting. 31 closes following graphic paragraph: 32 'Whatever law.' 33 think courts completely record. affirming unanimous written Walter Schaefer, nationally recognized protector rights defendants charged crime. seems particularly unfortunate me feels called Schaefer associates let go court contrived 'hanging and, Court's language, 'stacked deck' bring With deference much appropriately today way forced unconstitutional, forthrightly, impossible enforce 34 Now case. 35 On 29, 1959, nine years ago, shot killed policeman escape arrest. Petitioner struggling street woman met tavern police patrol car assigned vicinity stopped nearby traffic light. free herself grasp rushed policemen carrying gun. overheard conversation fled parking lot hid parked trailers tractors. while searching trailer him. There doubt since dying officer himself identified hospital, later lectured using young inexperienced officers. read majority's agreed unwilling cast 21, majority opinion. represented three appointed counsel, chief then Chairman Chicago Bar Association Committee Defense Indigent. note defense counsel show competent jurors. fact, finally accepted left exercise. past frequently taken indication impaneled impartial. collected Puff, 211 171, 185 (C.A.2d Cir. 1954). amounts distinguished tried biased, 'hanging,' 37 After another very attorney prosecute appeal, extensive brief alleging separate errors filed Illinois. Again, anyone thought March 25, 1963, affirmed lengthy Witherspoon, Ill.2d 483, 190 N.E.2d 281. attacked pursuing habeas corpus relief statutory remedy. Again mention alleged bias When January 17, 1964, refused requested relief, sought corpus, assisted third court-appointed attorney. As previous attacks claim unsuccessful bid, ex rel. Witherspoon Ogilvie, 337 427 (C.A.7th 1964), certiorari. 950, 452, 547. Then February 1965, petition requesting whatever form remedy 'provided Among claims, appeared contention violated dismissed failed forth facts sufficient entitle appealed appearing where, argued disqualification unconstitutional.1 disallowed concluding 'we adhere system each side examine impartial.' Ill.2d, 476, 224 N.E.2d, 262. subsequently certiorari review 38 § 743 Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, 39 same.' 40 obvious purpose section insure, insure thing, recognizes whole, usually called, 'society' state,' criminal defendants. itself quite clear: 41 'It remembered freedom also prosecution. Between scales evenly held.' Hayes Missouri, 120 68, 70, 350, 578. 42 Swain Alabama, 380 202, 219—220, 824, 835, 759. 43 plain bias. person seldom ever nature, amount semantic camouflage cover up. manner, dream foisting (a example, adheres literally Biblical admonition eye'). Yet logical holding 'conscience community' fully decides death.' While always advocated possible, carry far critical issues subscribe over 75 ago 429: 44 'As indicted crime punishable dire crime' permitted cause. subject, evidence, accordingly belief polygamy rightful polygamy. Reynolds 98 147, 157, 244; Miles 103 304, 310, 481. applied Story Cornell, Mason, 91, 105, Baldwin Wilson, Baldwin, 78, 83, arisen, states. Whart.Crim.Pl. (9th ed.) 664.' 45 attempts equate balance allegedly conflicting viewpoints truly established community's feelings sense comparable. Scruples commonly deep profound philosophical commitment developed soul-searching. holders recoil possible immoral. hand, proposition 'prosecution prone.'2 group, agree statement Appeals District Columbia Circuit: posed synonymous favoring Individuals indeed prejudiced crimes arbiters, mere lack opposition antipathies coexist; contrariwise exist other; indeed, person. enough or, criminals class; people, us, subject. *' Turberville 112 400, 409—410, 303 411, 420—421 (1962), cert. denied, 370 946, 82 1596, 813. 46 opposite above. hide implication inevitably somehow callous suffering are, commentators cited them, prone.' conclusion psychological foray mind considerable ability make, confess so-called 'studies' persuasive me. Finally, point real me, ambiguous. take literally, submit decided substance, merely indulged new placed cease asking penalty,' instead ask 'they automatically (See 21.) fine draw based illusion practical effect formulation significantly add deal trouble nothing. above, holding. goes future (Majority 18.) thinly veiled warning better change procedures face convictions obtained unconstitutionally. 48 long destroying concept known described eloquently Story: 49 'To insist sitting acknowledges influences, arise interest, prejudices, opinions, giving true subvert objects disgrace contempt, proceedings justice. sit verdicts men; men, honest causes. administration justice (which required).' Fed.Cas. 650, 655—656, 14,868 (1820). 50 necessary 1820 statement. contribute destruction ancient forcing through 'constitutional doctrine' laid down bound biased. dissent. 51 WHITE, 52 offends Eighth Amendment. Legislature specify crimes, guilt, Either holdings furnish satisfactory predicate reversing judgment. Without analytic reached infirm; says so, reasons 53 asserts legislative murder, everyone convicted, unsatisfactory: 54 521. (Citations footnote omitted.) 55 sole connecting sentences raw situations closely related. bars guilt-determining body unprejudiced result,1 speaks entirely terms sentence, deny legislature Why, then, disabled delegating often differently chosen? 56 All citizens, oppose assured opportunity influence legislature's determinations sentences. Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 506 (1964), succeeding cases. opposing prevailed forum, however. representatives determined individual citizens sentencing alternatives legislature. method implementing presumably related desire preserve traditional policy unanimous. undoubtedly citizen especially pronounced 'scruples' imposed.2 delegation decision, example surviving relatives victim, impermissible offend civilized men. Rochin 342 165, 172, 72 205, 209, 96 183 (1952). excludes punishments among choose, reasonable sensible act. 57 strong dislike meet Koestler's standards charity. laudable motives, hardly substitute usual processes reasoned analysis. offer grounds today's restrain appropriate penalties branches members, popular vote, extended (1959). re-enacted 1961 expressly Code Criminal Procedure 1963. 115—4(d) (1967) '(e)ach party cause,' 115 4(d) incorporates former 743. Hobbs, 274, 220 469, 475. inflicted post-sentence sanity hearing) like-wise (the defendant) sane, confirms sentence.' Carpenter, 470, 150 100, 103. (Emphasis added.) 471, 259. 389 1035, 793, 822. Unlike statutes disqualifying couched See, e.g., Cal.Penal Code, 1074, subd. 8. despite sometimes interfered determining accordance Thomas, 78 Ariz. 52, 58, 275 P.2d 408, 412; Nicolaus, 65 Cal.2d 866, 882, Cal.Rptr. 635, 646, 423 787, 798; Piccott State, 116 So.2d 626, 628 (Fla); Commonwealth Ladetto, 349 Mass. 237, 246, 207 536, 542; Williams, Nev. 271, 278, 257 P. 619, 621; Smith Okl.Cr. 282, 284, 114 351; Jensen, 209 Or. 239, 281, 296 618, 635; Leuch, 198 Wash. 331, 333—337, 440, 441—442. stresses fact presided during implied deem themselves shows, remarks within hearing statute. contrary, venires courtroom, appears statements made. believes irrev- ocably committed abolition subordinate personal perceived duty abide State. Webster, 59 295, 298. Atkins Ark. 568, 580; Williams Miss. 389, 395—396; Rhea 63 Neb. 461, 472—473, N.W. 789, 792. Compare 410, 413—414: 'The declaration rejected jurors, amounted like hung. Few would. Every right-thinking painful fellow-man. error improperly rejecting (these) reversed.' examination illustrates, assumed scruples' (see Bandhauer, 66 524, 531, 58 332, 337, 426 900, 905) thereby doing 466—468, 790. Cf. 621. Obviously 'could, notwithstanding (against punishment), (a) (of death) subservient jurors.' Stratton People, Colo. 276, 277. Henderson, 242 Pa. 372, 377, A. 567, 569. unfit supra, Neb., 470—471, N.W., 791—792. Oberer, Does Disqualification Jurors Against Capital Punishment Constitute Denial Fair Trial Issue Guilt?, Tex.L.Rev. 545, 547—548 (1961); Comment, 1968 Duke L.J. 283, 295—299. question, phrases area construed commentators. What matters understood—or misunderstood—by Any 'layman (might) somewhat unhappy (Thus) presence scruples) inquiry separates reserve direct cases.' 308—309. Unless unambiguously reveal, position. brief, cites surveys, involving 187 college students, W. Belief Performance (Unpublished Manuscript, University Texas, 200 F. Goldberg, Attitude Toward Behavior Juror Simulated Cases Morehouse College, undated). certiorari, study interviews 1,248 York Chicago. preliminary, unpublished summary consisting prone sit,' chances acquittal reduced H. Zeisel, Some Insights Into Operation Juries (Confidential First Draft, November 1957). During review, prosecution-prone character 'death-qualified' 'purely legal question,' resolution required 'no additional proof' beyond disclosed transcript Counsel 'opportunity evidence' contentions unrelated here. issue, similar request made, studies mentioned. speculate, therefore, meaning used studies, accuracy techniques employed, validity generalization circumstances, surprising curiae NAACP Legal Educational Fund finds observe 'almost totally lacking sort factual information assist Court.' jury's binding judge. §§ 360, 801 longer empowered 1—7(c)(1) (1967), turns follow recommendation. Kalven & American July 435, 444, 448—449 (1966). Bernette, 359, 370, 197 436, 443. suggested dissenting Oillinois 'impose crimes.' Post, 541. attempted things. defined category 'death (is) preferred penalty.' 369, 442. Instead, deliberately 'made optional remains) fit.' functions maintain link contemporary values penal system—a whith reflect evolving decency mark progress maturing society.' Trop Dulles, 86, 101, 590, 598, 630 (opinion THE CHIEF JUSTICE, joined MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WHITTAKER). 19, infra. 1966, approximately 42% public favored murderers, 47% 11% undecided. Polls, International Review Public Opinion, Vol. II, (1967). 1960, comparable figures 51% favor, 36% opposed, 13% Ibid. Arthur observation: division rich poor, highbrow lowbrow, Christians atheists: charity not. test one's humanity fact—not lip service, shuddering recognition kinship: grace God, drop I.' Koestler, Reflections Hanging 166—167 (1956). Even further succeed effort, interest submitting vindicated expense innocence—given possibility accommodating interests bifurcated fix here, intimate view resolution. Friends Service notes number country climbed 300 1963 406 actually executed seven 1966. suggests phenomenon explained part society's 'deep reluctance sentence' widening 'divergence society generally.' understood simple answer 'yes' 'no' live. sure, specified Insofar 'that account offense together propensities offender,' Pennsylvania Sullivan Ashe, 302 51, 55, 59, 61, 43, differ corresponding evidentiary 241, 69 1079, 93 1337. requirements procedural fairness ignored differs respects assessment engaged proscribed course conduct. Specht Patterson, 386 605, 87 1209, 326. Mempa Rhay, 128, 254, 336. One requirements, least, deserves tipped premise Fourth Circuit recently invalidated North Carolina noting 'duty' murderer 'while interrogation.' 'double standard,' concluded, 'inevitably resulted denial process.' Crawford Bounds, 395 297, 303—304 (alternative holding). Stroud 251 15, 20—21, 50, 64 103, rehearing, id., 380, 381, 176, 177, 317 (dictum). Just views, indicate expected law, irrevocably committed, begun, regardless emerge proceedings. testimony indicates broader this, relevant jurisdiction appear narrower exclusion. nn. 9, supra. repeat, bears unmistakably (1) (2) affect Nor, finally, render invalid considered suggestion, advanced behalf 'give application ruling area,' dictum 1892 approved practice challenging crime.' 429. clear, notwithstanding, undermined integrity process' fate, Linkletter Walker, 381 639, 1731, 1743, 601, concluded reliance enforcement officials, cf. Tehan Shott, 382 406, 417, 459, 465, 453; Johnson Jersey, 384 719, 731, 1772, 1780, 882; impact retroactive justice, Stovall Denno, 388 29o, 1967, 1971, 1199, warrants today. tradition instruments community.' 311 130, 61 164, 84. 191, Thiel Southern Pacific Co., 328 217, 220, 984, 985, 90 1181 ('The connection civil proceedings, contemplates community'); 85—86, 680. Ala.Code, Tit. 318 (1958); Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 453 (1956); Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. 40—2—3 (1963); Haw.Rev.Laws 291 (1955); Idaho Ann. 18—4004 (1948); (1967); Ind.Ann.Stat. 9—1819 Kan.Stat.Ann. 21—403 (1964); Ky.Rev.Stat. 435.010 Ky.Rule Crim.Proc. 9.84 (1965); Mo.Rev.Stat. 559.030 (1959), V.A.M.S.; Neb.Rev.Stat. 28—401 Nev.Rev.Stat. 200.030 Okla.Stat.Ann., 707 Tenn.Code 39—2406 Vernon's Ann.Tex.Pen.Code Art. 1257 (1961), Tex.Code Crim.Proc., 37.07 (1967 Supp.); Va.Code 18.1—22, 19.1 (1960). court. overrule Anderson, S.W.2d 591 (Mo.1964); S.D.Code 13.2012 (1960 Supp.). Cal.Pen.Code, 190.1 N.Y. Penal Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, 40, 125.30, 125.35 Pa.Stat., 4701 (1963). Supp.) (trial retire deliberate returned). Ark.Stat.Ann. 41—2227, 43—2153 Conn.Gen.Stat.Rev. 53—10 (1965 Del.Code Ann., 11, 571, 3901 (1966 Fla.Stat. 782.04, 919.23 (1965), F.S.A.; Ga.Code 26—1005 (1953); La.Rev.Stat. 14:30 (1950); Md.Ann.Code, 27, 413 Mass.Gen.Laws (1959); Miss.Code 2217 (1957); Mont.Rev.Codes 94—2505 (1949); N.J.Rev.Stat. 2A:113—4 (1953), N.J.S.A.; N.M.Stat.Ann. 40A—29—2 N.C.Gen.Stat. 14—17 Ohio Rev.Code 2901.01 (1954); S.C.Code 16—52 (1962); Utah 76—30—4 Wyo.Stat.Ann. 6—54 possesses failure mercy. (1953) (if circumstantial evidence); Delaware Romeo, 46, 128 530 (1912). Arkansas: 43—2152 Connecticut: 53—9 Delaware: Price, Del. 544, 108 385 (1919); Florida; Brown 124 481 (1960); Georgia: (no murder) Graham Ga.App. 130 S.E. 354 (1925); Louisiana: Goodwin, 189 La. 443, 179 So. (1938); Maryland: 412 Chisley 202 Md. 87, 95 A.2d 577 Gunther 228 404, 880 Massachusetts: Kavalauskas, 453, 819 (1945), DiStasio, 298 562, 799 (1937); Mississippi: Anderson 199 885, 474 (1946); Montana: Le Duc, Mont. 919 (1931); Miller, 596, (1932); Jersey: Sullivan, N.J. 203 177 Wynn, 121 534 Mexico: Smith, N.M. 482, 194 869 (1921); Carolina: Lucas, N.C. 825, 962 (1899); Ohio: Muskus, 158 St. 109 (1952); South Byrd, S.C. 104, 542 (1905); Utah: Mewhinney, 135, 134 632 (1913); Wyoming: Brantley Wyo. 102, 139 (1900). 319 (1958) (person serving term commission offense); 13—701 (1956) (treason); (1959) (rape murders); 2397 (1957) 2901.09, 2901.10 (1954) (murder President, Vice-President, Governor, Lieutenant Governor); R.I.Gen.Laws 11—23—2 offense). Alaska Stat. 11.15.010 Iowa 690.2 Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., 2651 Mich.Stat.Ann. 28.548, Comp.Laws 1948, 750.316 Minn.Stat. 609.185 Ore.Rev.Stat. 163.010 W.Va.Code 61—2—2 (1966); Wis.Stat. 940.01 Dakota except discretion. N.D.Cent.Code 12—27—13, 12—27—22 Vermont second killing peace prison official, Vt.Stat.Ann., 13, 2303 Rhode Island Georgia age California age. Cal.Pen.Code performing official duties Law 125.30 Hampshire Washington provide N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 585:4 Wash.Rev.Code 9.48.030 Maryland alone rape aggravated kidnaping. 338 erroneous Texas statute), 1, punishment.' '(T)he gulf grows populace becomes infected modern notions criminality Accordingly, progressively narrower, connotes Moreover, willingness sworn case—wanes prejudicial innocence waxes; resort increasingly extremists community—those touch ideas motivation, constant refinement finest cultural heritage, dedication understanding. due-process implications flex seem obvious. Yesterday's problem.' 556—557 (1961). Court, is) 443 (1964). Dukes, 334, 146 Weisberg, 396 Ill. 412, 671 (1947); Martellaro, 281 117 N.E. 1052 (1917). points out, (47 95), Rudolph 375 889, 155, 119, prohibits rapist endangered life.' contrast, instant concerns Amendments Certainly delays raising condoned intolerable miscarriages Noia, 372 391, 83 822, 837. Bumper Carolina, 543, 554, 1788, 1794, 797 'No proof available, know, imagine none, speaking, bent hostility incapable rendering Being op- wholly foreclose restrictions membership participation constituted aware ease adjust They continue commit replacing decisions achieve roughly procedure struck

Category: 0