Legal Document

Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RANDY WHITE, WARDEN v. ROGER L. WHEELER ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 14–1372. Decided December 14, 2015 PER CURIAM. A death sentence imposed by a Kentucky trial court and affirmed the Supreme Court has been over- turned, on habeas corpus review, of Appeals for Sixth Circuit. During jury selection process, state excused juror after concluding he could not give sufficient assurance neutrality or impar- tiality in considering whether penalty should be imposed. The Appeals, despite substantial deference it must accord to state-court rulings federal proceedings, determined that excusing circumstances this case violated Fourteenth Amendments. That ruling contravenes con- trolling precedents from Court, is now neces- sary reverse summary disposition. Warden Randy White petitioner here, convicted prisoner, Roger Wheeler, respondent. In October 1997, police Louisville, Kentucky, found bodies Nigel Malone Nairobi Warfield apartment couple shared. had stabbed nine times. strangled pair scissors stuck out her neck. She was preg- nant. DNA taken blood at crime scene matched respondent’s. Respondent charged with murders. voir dire, Juror 638 gave equivocal incon- sistent answers when questioned about consider voting impose penalty. response judge’s questions his personal beliefs 2 WHITE penalty, said, “I’m sure I have formed an opinion one way other. believe there are arguments both sides the—of it.” App. Pet. Cert. 126a. When asked prosecution ability all available penalties, noted “never confronted situation a, real-life sense having make kind determina- tion.” Id., 131a. “So it’s difficult me,” explained, “to judge how would guess act, uh.” Ibid. prosecu- tion sought clarify 638’s answer, asking if meant “not absolutely certain [he] realistically consider” 132a. replied, “I think most accurate answer your question.” defense counsel’s examination, described him- self as “a bit more contemplative issue taking life and, uh, we right take life.” 133a. Later, however, expressed belief options. 134a. moved strike cause based inconsistent replies, illustrated statement opposed motion, arguing indicated options, some reservations said she done questioning 638, wrote notes “ ‘could [the] entire range’ ” penalties. 138a. further stated did “see him problematic” end examination. But also “hear say couldn’t penalty,” reserved motion until review testimony. next day, reviewing relevant testimony, struck cause. announced 3 decision excuse juror, stated, “And went back reviewed [the juror’s] testi- mony, prosecution] concluded saying, ‘Would you couldn’t, range?’ And is—I was, ‘I pretty accurate.’ So, I’m going sustain one, too.” 139a–140a. proceeded trial. murders sentenced death. convictions sentence. Wheeler Commonwealth, 121 S.W.3d 173, 189 (2003). respondent’s challenges court’s excusal jurors cause, held “appropriately those pen- alty. . There no error rights defendant fair impartial under constitutions were violated.” 179. After exhausting postconviction proce- dures, respondent writ 28 U.S. C. §2254 United States District Western Kentucky. He asserted, inter alia, erred striking during dire ground assurances sentencing option. dismissed petition; but divided panel Circuit reversed, granting relief Simpson, 779 F.3d 366, 379 (2015). While acknowledging deferential standard required conviction, allowing exclusion unreasonable application Witherspoon Illinois, 391 510 (1968), Wainwright Witt, 469 412 (1985), their progeny. F.3d, 372– 4 374. Under Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), authorized “was contrary to, involved of, clearly established Federal law, States.” §2254(d)(1). This time again, instructed AEDPA, setting forth predicates before judgments may set aside, “erects formidable barrier prisoners whose claims adjudicated court.” Burt Titlow, 571 ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., 6). §2254(d)(1), ‘a prisoner show claim being presented so lacking justification well understood comprehended exist- ing law beyond any possibility fairminded disagree- ment.’ Woodall, 572 (2014) 4) (quoting Harrington Richter, 562 86, 103 (2011)). apply defer- ential analysis respond- ent’s claim. Witherspoon, rule disqualification capital cases. recognized Amendment’s guarantee confers defend- ants “uncommonly willing demn man die.” U.S., 521. equal clarity acknowledged State’s “strong interest who able punishment within framework prescribes.” Uttecht Brown, 551 1, 9 (2007). To ensure proper bal- ance between these two interests, only substantially impaired state-law can cause.” As explained 5 “where left definite impression prospective unable faithfully impartially law.” 425–426. Reviewing courts owe particular “regardless engages explicit regard- impairment; even constitutes implicit finding bias.” Uttecht, 7. “finding upheld absence clear statements .” where, constraints additional “independent, high standard” deference. 10. result, Witherspoon-Witt claim—much like ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim—must “‘“doubly deferential.”’” Burt, supra, 1) Cullen Pinholster, 563 170, 190 unreasonably applied progeny removing constitutional. 372–374. “understood decisions face engaged them thoughtful, honest, conscientious manner.” 373. Appeals’ estimation, qualified “misappre- hending single question exchange” prosecution, id., 374—the exchange which 372. According “agreed know absolute certainty 6 knew not.” judge, “properly pro- cessed tion, excused. Both conclusion incorrect. failed ask critical question: Was Court’s affirm ‘so existing disagreement’ ”? Harrington, 103). properly ence ruling. jurist readily conclude reflected “diligent thoughtful dire”; considered care juror’s testimony; exercise “broad discretion” determining serve case. 20. least ambiguous appropriate consideration imposing made “when ambiguity statements,” ‘entitled resolve favor State.’ 7 434). its assessment reformulation important part questioning. day “couldn’t sider range” 139a. fact sider” range confirmation ibid., reasonable basis considera- tion. violate member jury. See 424–426. simi- larly, disagreement. toward largely premised ‘observe demeanor ’ juror. 373 17). It here supported relief, because “initial demeanor” lead immediately 373– conflicts meaning holding common-sense understanding process. Nothing limits evaluating alone substance response. im- plicit suggestion entitled less deliberated initial wrong. ordinary quite opposite. true contemporane- ous demeanor, bearing interpret understand responses, deference; likewise careful 8 formal transcript recording. If chooses reflect deliberate further, proceedings recessed faulted; commended. where “the record discloses impairment.” judges majority below might reached different they presid- over dire. simple disagreement does overcome layers owed context. * Amendment. Given conclusion, need petitioner’s contention that, excluding subject harmless-error analysis. other addressed opinion. final matter, again advises provisions AEDPA full force conviction See, e.g., Parker Matthews, 567 (2012) (per curiam); Bobby Dixon, 565 (2011) Mitts, 395 Van Hook, 558 (2009) curiam). petition certiorari proceed forma pauperis granted. judgment remanded consistent ordered.

Classification Label: 0