Legal Document

467 U.S. 1025 104 S.Ct. 2885 81 L.Ed.2d 847 Ernest S. PATTON, Superintendent, Sci-Camp Hill and Leroy Zimmerman, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Petitioners,v.Jon E. YOUNT. No. 83-95. Supreme Court the United States Argued Feb. 28, 1984. Decided June 26, Syllabus After a jury trial in Pennsylvania state court 1966, respondent was convicted first-degree murder rape, sentenced to life imprisonment. However, on direct appeal held that police had violated respondent's constitutional rights securing confessions been admitted evidence, remanded case for new trial. Before during an extensive voir dire examination potential jurors at second 1970, moved change venue, arguing publicity concerning resulted dissemination prejudicial information could not be eradicated from jurors' minds. The denied motions, again murder. He resentenced imprisonment, motion trial, finding practically no given between two trials, little public interest shown without bias. affirmed conviction court's findings. Respondent then sought habeas corpus relief Federal District Court, claiming his obtained violation right under Sixth Fourteenth Amendments fair by impartial jury. Upholding view impartial, relief, but Appeals reversed. Relying primarily Irvin v. Dowd, 366 717, 1639, 6 751, found pretrial made impossible county. Held: 1. testimony record do reveal kind "wave passion" would have unlikely empaneled as whole. Although supra, adverse can create such presumption prejudice community claims they should believed, it also recognized findings impartiality may overturned only "manifest error." In this case, community's sense outrage were their height prior first shows greatly diminished sentiment softened when selected four years later. Thus did commit manifest error whole impartial. Potential who retained fixed opinions guilt disqualified, fact great majority veniremen "remembered case," more, is essentially irrelevant. relevant question whether judge impartially guilt. passage time trials clearly rebutted any partiality or existed initial Pp. 1031-1035. 2. There merit argument one jurors, well alternates, erroneously seated over challenges cause. ambiguity cited insufficient overcome correctness, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), owed individual juror's plainly historical fact, there support courts' conclusion here 1036-1040. 710 F.2d 956 (CA3, 1983), F. Cortez Bell, III, Clearfield, Pa., petitioners. George Schumacher, Public Defender, Pittsburgh, respondent. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This brings before us claim so infected criminal deny defendant Amendment "impartial jury." 2 * On April body Pamela Rimer, 18-year-old high school student, wooded area near her home Luthersburg, Clearfield County, Pa. numerous wounds about head cuts throat neck. An autopsy revealed she died strangulation blood drawn into lungs. showed indication sexually assaulted. 3 At 5:45 following morning, Yount appeared State Police Substation nearby DuBois. Yount, victim's mathematics teacher, proceeded give oral written refused release confession press, published until after read Yount's arraignment three days Record, Ex. P-1-a, P-1-d. evidence. took stand claimed temporary insanity. him he determined Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), inadequate notice attorney confession. Commonwealth 435 276, 256 A.2d 464 (1969), cert. denied, 397 925, 90 918, 25 (1970). 4 Prior ordered suppression portion legally custody. prosecution dismissed rape charge. followed now heart case. Jury selection began November 4, 10 days, 7 panels, 292 veniremen, 1,186 pages testimony. venue before, several times during, dire. argued widespread minds difficulty newspaper other articles motions denied. noted merely reported events editorial comment; length part leniency allowing examinations jurors; "almost all, if all," "no present opinion"; "little, any, talk public" trials. observed sparsely attended. 5 Ultimately, 12 alternates seated. take Instead relied upon cross-examination character witnesses attempt undermine State's proof intent. murder, App. 268a. addition, concluded 455 303, 311-314, 314 242, 247-248 (1974). January 1981, filed petition writ claimed, inter alia, assigned Magistrate, conducted hearing recommended granted. rejected Magistrate's recommendation. 537 F.Supp. 873 (WD Pa.1982). It vicious, excessive, nor officially sponsored, able set aside preconceived notions percentage excused cause "not remarkable anyone familiar with selecting homicide Pennsylvania." Id., 882. reviewed instances which challenge cause, upheld Third Circuit (1983). analysis out 751 (1961), County. independently examined nature surrounding venire whole, eventually confession, plea insanity, evidence trial.1 all 163 questioned case2 heard it, that, 126, 77%, carry box. higher than Irvin, where 62% 430 because petitioner's Finally, 8 14 actually some formed guilt.3 thought many equivocal responses asked these opinions, juror, Mr. Hrin, both required beliefs. "despite assurances impartiality, render verdict based solely presented." 972.4 Judge Garth concurred judgment. declined join actual might inferred answers wrote "[a] thorough skillfully adequate identify juror bias, even saturated defendant." 979.5 nevertheless Hrin stated mind stripped innocence.6 9 We granted certiorari, 913, 272, 78 254 (1983), consider, context problem pervasive media arises frequently sensational cases. reverse judgment Appeals. II As noted, rested its decision Court's supra. That decision, leading time, believed. number factors determining totality circumstances raised presumption. however, U.S., 723, S.Ct., 1643. address aspect decision.7 Moreover, below, concentrating discussed failed weight significant six seven months immediately preceding "a barrage headlines, articles, cartoons pictures unleashed against [the defendant]." 725, 1644. 1966. issue here, occur later, softened. circumstances, we hold 11 reveals year half reversal start each County daily newspapers average less article per month. 642a-657a; P-1-v P-1-kk, P-2. More important, extremely brief announcements dates scheduling are common rural newspapers. E.g., 653a-656a; P-1-ff, P-1-ii, P-1-jj. transcript contains references sparse minimal 43a, 98a, 100a; Tr. (Nov. 1970) 27-28, 90, 191, 384, 771, 829, 1142. true almost basis, too purely factual generally discussing crime prosecution, prolonged process selection. 658a-671a. short, preceding, of, does "barrage inflammatory trial," Murphy Florida, 421 794, 798, 95 2031, 2035, 44 589 (1975), amounting "huge . wave passion," 728, 1645, Irvin. lapse profound effect and, more jury, softening effacing opinion. Many course, simply let details slip 194a; 33, 284, 541-544, 991. while testified many, weakened eliminated had. See, e.g., 98a-100a (juror 7), 128a 8); 384-385, 398-399, 831, 897 (semble), 1075-1076, 1144; see 164a-166a 10).8 same late therefore subjected broadcasts disseminated dire:9 suggests passions inflamed thoughts biased publicity. id., 176a-177a, 150a-151a; 959, 1027. 13 soothes erases perfectly natural phenomenon, all. See 271 552, 561 (CA7 1959) (Duffy, J., dissenting) (A continuance "[t]he healer," "subsid[ed]"), rev'd, (1961); Murphy, 802, 2037; Beck Washington, 369 541, 556, 82 955, 963, 98 (1962). Not members put earlier prejudice, disclosed. They disqualified. But those forgotten need persuaded again.10 below case" served "to erase highly unfavorable memory [the] community." F.2d, 969. conclusion, remembered defendant. 1642-1643. unusual one's recollection notorious committed lingers long feelings revulsion passed. fruitless particular itself distinguish situation Irvin.11 clear fact. rebuts fair, abundant, "practically matter through news media," "any created publicity." 268a, 265a. III 15 briefly argues Brief 32. substantial doubt properly Hrin. Compare 966, n. 18, 977, (Garth, concurring). And alternate sit judgment, talked 4-day concurrence produce inclination think accused guilty, panel association "operate[d] subvert requirement jury's developed witness stand," 971, 25. Therefore, will consider jurors. judges disqualify them mixed law 968, 20, 981. Thus, correctness due 2254(d) apply. proposition addressed discuss Part II, extended federal placed issue. Rather fact: swear decide protestation Cf. Rushen Spain, 114, 120, 453, 267 (1983) (state-court determination deliberations ex parte communications fact).12 17 good reasons apply statutory resolution questions. First, has often proceeding designed specifically veniremen. assume method since beginning, Burr, F.Cas. 14,692g, p. 49, 51 (No. 14,692g) (CC Va.1807) (Marshall, C.J.), usually identifies bias.13 Second, credibility, largely demeanor. said occasions, questions entitled, appeal, "special deference." Bose Corp. Consumers Union Inc., 466 485, 500, 1949, 1959, 80 502 (1984). respect paid certainly less. Marshall Lonberger, 459 422, 434-435, 103 843, 850-851, 74 646 (1983).14 18 2254(d)(8). challenged ambiguous contradictory. examination, particularly publicized remember lay persons never type tactics employed, evident Prospective represent cross section community, education experience vary widely. Also, unlike witnesses, prospective briefing lawyers taking stand. Jurors thus cannot expected invariably express themselves carefully consistently. Every understands this, our system best situated determine competency serve impartially. choose believe statements most fully articulated least influenced leading. 19 scrutinized courts member judge's seat despite early testimony, confirmed initially challenge. Defense counsel permission resume cross-examination. response entering box mind, forthrightly stated: "I I enter box] very open mind. easily. To say things you every day." 89a. categorical answer, defense renew Similarly, Pyott, fault crediting earliest "[i]f [she] to," rather later logically discard have. 246a, 250a-252a. Alternate Chincharick's ambiguous, appears answered "yes" him. deference must operate, cold arouses concern, tell greatest comprehension certainty. IV 20 conclude reverse. 21 ordered. 22 MARSHALL consideration 23 STEVENS, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 24 page states certain facts reader strong feeling how decided. Jon confessed responsible brutal killing high-school student. 1966 temporarily insane guilty These admissible What impact, inadmissible indeed judge, listened 1970? satisfied "community softened," ante, 1032, "did impartial," know "time erases," 1034. order explain why disagree assessment necessary enlarge summary coverage aftermath, supplement discussion Next, my disagreement regarding shall add word raises. 26 Because places emphasis "this opinion," 1033, important note were, effect, chapters coverage: stories 1966; 1969; 1970 being selected. 27 occurred victim lived. county, population 70,000, combined circulation 25,000. surprisingly, gave front-page homicide, proceedings, itself. editions DuBois Courier Express, carried banner headlines front page, feature articles. 520a-641a; P-1-b, P-1-d, P-1-f P-1-t. Progress evaluated "Top News Story 1966." P-2, Both papers proceedings "unprecedented." 956, 962 (CA3 1983). received radio television coverage, see, 64 1), 142, 220, 277, according Appeals, out-of-state national publications. 962, 6. detailed.1 "related full [Yount's] detailed retelling homicide. charge finally October 7, murder." 963; 538a-540a, 603a-606a. notes, "the 1966," 1032. 29 1969, divided reversed event pass unnoticed contrary, announced reversal. 642a; P-1-v. local press reprinted entire dissenting 644a; P-1-x. And, stated, program became forum callers expressed hostility [Yount]." 963. contradicts easy assumption 30 returned retrial courtroom presided trial—the whose erroneous rulings necessary. ground continuing among residents receive prosecutor pointless widely throughout State. motion, explaining recent items consisted reporting "without comment kin[d]." 260a. ruling generated article. 654a; P-1-gg. Additionally, subsequent dire, merited sometimes profile 658a-659a, 661a-663a, 664a-671a; P-1-ll, P-1-nn P-1-vv; 31 wife minister, sheds revelatory light eve acknowledging asked: 32 "Q. Would your presence serving parish? 33 "A. Why yes—when people name this—countless church come me hoped take—the called. built up church. 34 Is Yount? Yes was. got sentence. He's lucky didn't get chair. 35 36 "[T]he people—I haven't group—but chosen expect follow through. 37 Notwithstanding what you, feel subject retributions retaliation people— 38 hear it." 25a-27a. 39 minister's excused. Her excused, repudiates notion tempted understate felt duty neighbors through."2 events, establishes still "cause celebre" 1970. 40 Even accepted face value, difficult understand neutral observer referring selected, useful describe attitude pervaded venire. 41 days. 745a; 975. Out original total 129 improperly, 685-686, valid reason serving. 117-118, 492, 1039, 1060-1061. Of remaining questioned, 127a-128a, 370a-371a 4); 42 121 96 firm changed regardless presented. Twenty-one others convince so. nine unsuccessfully so.3 963-964. Hunter summarized Appeals: "When combine 117 find 126 willing admit opinion[s] box."4 964. 43 Turning accurately reached twelve empanelled." Ibid. (footnote omitted); 32a, 71a, 83a, 120a, 149a, 163a, 176a, 193a, 210a, 235a, 250a. Juror "it pretty hard something paper" case; people. 32a. newspapers; "[y]ou hardly miss [radio television] news"; 43a-44a. person 210a-211a. newcomer area, 57a-58a. before" wondered having another 73a. James 6, require presentation it. 85a. "[i]t's live paper talking about—at reserving opinion." 88a. opinion; sure 98a-99a. "on just himself—that guilty." 125a. petitioner presently sides forming 150a. occasion own listen 164a-165a. accounts 177a. 193a-194a. Two ideas presented 235a-240a. definite production 251a-252a. convinces 264a, inconsistent adduced statement "there except report Court," ignores 55 record. P-1, Further, [of 12] manifestly erroneous; review acknowledged either 43a-44a, 98a-99a, 150a, publicity" first-trial within stories. included confessions, outside 643a-644a, 650a, 655a; P-1-w, P-1-x, P-1-z, P-1-cc, P-1-hh. Under capable deciding Smith Phillips, 209, 217, 102 940, 946, 71 (1982) ("Due means it"). 45 today rejects forth complete version Hrin's 46 prosecution's questioning, testimony: 47 Have innocence 48 degree papers, yes. 49 part? 50 sort answer. Fixed? Let ask—if box, remove produced trial? 52 possible. wouldn't sure. 53 Do could? 54 possibly could. Then necessarily immobile opinion? 56 not, work job constantly. 57 becoming That's way answer question. 58 If definitely 59 presuming innocent? 60 Can prepared Judge? 61 do." 83a-84a. elicited further cross-examination: 62 Did some—you have? 63 Definitely. show difference originally—had led believe, you're facts, mind—is position? 65 Well—I nothing else go on. 66 understand. yes—you facts? 67 Right, 68 words, saying keep free mind? 69 70 presented? Right. 85a-86a. 72 subsequently cause; "said mind." 86a. 73 regard sufficient 2254(d). fairly supported indicated previous innocence, dispel stated—pursuant questioning—that "[i]t answer" innocence. am convinced improperly disqualifying flawed. begins stating 1036. concludes, simply, entitled 2254(d)'s correctness. acknowledges "[t]here are, legal considered qualified," 1037, 12, cites authority Reynolds States, 145, L.Ed. 244 (1879).6 75 Contrary proper starting point excepted reject 146-147. decision. 157. reaching ultimate 76 "The theory entertain effect. enterprise universal education, almost, necessity, brought attention intelligent vicinity, scarcely fitted impression merits. clear, therefore, called strength raise partiality. tried, far concerned, like character, ought reviewing court, unless manifest." 155-156. 77 proceedings. Initially, "if court." inquiry demonstrate " 'whether partiality,' ibid. (quoting 156), 'one fact.' teach disqualifies language definition applies determinations courts. Applying analytical framework, empaneling Hrin.7 79 special independent elected preside. Unlike appointed tenure, concerned reaction disposition judiciary, Circuits sound practice different necessary; though risk subconsciously strive vindicate result remote, human beings preside possibility ignored entirely. additional somewhat disturbing comment: (1) exercise discretionary jurisdiction (2) Appeals' entirely correct, benefit prisoner who, seem, heinous offense? grants certiorari involves considerations law. motivated select plenary review. motivating impact Court—that murderer student appellate also, emotional unforgettable desire "follow through"—to apparent miscarriage justice—is laymen resist.8 already incarcerated years. If, held, yet beyond reasonable remains greater punishment warranted. much importance dedication principle offense society decided executive fiat popular vote. affords protection citizen States. Frankfurter Dowd: 83 "More test quality civilization treatment charged crime, offenses arouse community. One rightful boasts Western burden establishing basis assuring safeguards procedure. rudimentary conditions inevitably wanting fellow comes task ineradicably poisoned him." 729, 1646 (concurring). 84 affirm 969, suggested court. undermined last weeks retrial. 22. discounted, limited significance, few spectators attended allege arising 'circus atmosphere' courtroom. hundred twenty-five properly. Four Stern separate concurring "constitutional standard 175 guided lower courts" rejected. 972. hinge disqualification aside, bar empanelled 25% defendant's doubts sincerity suggest concealed wrote. distinguishable, (which cause) engage searching dire." 979. Rather, credited subjective notwithstanding 359 394, 398, 825, 828, 900 (1959). unconstitutionally applicable proceeding, Irvin—that "independently evaluate" 1643—meant five Congress added statute explicit state-court findings, Pub.L. 89-711, Stat. 1105-1106, Townsend Sain, 372 293, 745, 770 (1963), provided guidelines codified. practical error" "fairly record" amended statute. stringent. Since uphold Irvin's standard, development Martin Karetski, illustrative: You years? past came knew then? sir. recently coming again, presume? again. it? far. too. Back around '66, you? '66. [Mr. Yount's] [in 1966]? innocence? It's ago I'm now. plead [sic] guilty. ask then. opinion, wipe mind—erase whatever hear? now—four probably don't. happened eliminate me? Well, wasn't slipped away thought." 98a-100a. sequestered chosen. extensive. pick 167 Garth's surmise, 979, interviews quoted appear significantly probing here. Petitioner O.T. 1960, 41, pp. 18-59. side, judge. procedures alone panel. insubstantial distinction, controlling. defendant—widely known "Murph Surf" heavily damaging extreme Nevertheless, distinguishable publication ceased 2037. involved trial; qualified. law, 1642, 1643; owe deference, Rushen, 456-457. 431-432, 849-850, (similar voluntary). 156, (1879) (whether disqualified involving fact; latter error). dissent misreads Post, 1050-1052, nn. 7. 87 2254. attach significance phrase fact" modern juror-disqualification law—whether correct applied—and Whether meet viewed determination. dissent, notes "mixed fact," 156. Plainly, separately applied, passage: manner testifying oftentimes indicative real words. seen always spread Care should, taken case." 156-157 (emphasis added). Taken together, passages "character [a juror's] opinion" suggestion 1050, telling truth, discovering "real character" held. Deference conclusions Accord, re Application National Broadcasting Co., 209 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 362, 653 609, 617 (1981) ("[V]oir effective rooting especially careful thoroughgoing manner"); Duncan, 598 839, 865 (CA4), 444 871, 100 148, (1979); Calley Callaway, 519 184, (CA5 1975) (en banc) (citing cases), sub. nom. Hoffman, 425 911, 1505, 760 (1976). cf. 222, n., 941, 78, (O'CONNOR, concurring) (describing situations uncover bias); Rideau Louisiana, 373 1417, 663 (1963) (same). Demeanor plays fundamental role understanding saying. Any complicated calls unfamiliar terms, reading reveal. Demeanor, inflection, flow make confused conflicting utterances comprehensible. "details" prompted citizens write letters Express. letter complained "fanned atmosphere malicious gossip" putting picture corpse "repetitive use gory details." author "was looking Enquirer." noted: "Emotional editorializing it's place reporting, strenuously object headline [D]escriptive words sell stir emotions discredit tend suspect guilt." P-1-e. pointed out, erased daughter-in-law left voicing animosity toward Yount. 964; 766a. added: "Petitioner peremptorily exhausted peremptory challenges." 964, 13. point, footnote: "In petitioner, jurors." 14. personal reasons. attempts justify quoting with: words." Ante, 156-157). excerpt dealt truthful—specifically falsely seeking himself. including guilt, false raises demonstrates former point: leaves hypothetical falls short raising considering unmindful experience, unfrequently seek excuse turns exists. cases (per curiam), Neither correctly inapplicable voluntariness pleas, allegation arose began. "do[es] [Irvin's] issue." validity (habeas case) (individual jurors), inapplicability dispose meaningful "extend" consecutive exercised discretion summarily, apparently Florida Meyers, 380, 385-387, 3, 1852, 1855, 381 string victories stands 20. Massachusetts Upton, 727, 2085, 721 (1984) curiam).

Classification Label: 0