Legal Document

469 U.S. 412 105 S.Ct. 844 83 L.Ed.2d 841 Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Petitionerv.Johnny Paul WITT. No. 83-1427. Argued Oct. 2, 1984. Decided Jan. 21, 1985. Syllabus Respondent was tried by a jury in state court and convicted first-degree murder. In accordance with the jury's recommendation, he sentenced to death. On appeal, respondent claimed that several prospective jurors had been improperly excluded for cause because their opposition capital punishment, violation decision Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 510, 88 1770, 20 776, but Supreme Court affirmed conviction sentence. After unsuccessfully seeking postconviction review courts, filed petition writ habeas corpus Federal District under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That denied petition. The Appeals reversed granted writ, holding that, on basis voir dire questioning prosecutor, one excused Witherspoon. drew standard determining when juror may properly be from Witherspoon, supra, at 522, n. S.Ct., 1777, which states if they make it "unmistakably clear" would "automatically" vote against punishment without regard evidence or attitude toward death penalty prevent them making an impartial as defendant's "guilt." Held: 1. proper his views is whether juror's "prevent substantially impair performance duties instructions oath." Adams Texas, 448 38, 45, 100 2521, 2526, 65 581. addition dispensing reference "automatic" decisionmaking, this does not require bias proved "unmistakable clarity." Here, given standard, minimum erred focusing unduly lack clarity juror, her answers indicated she penalty. Pp. 418-426. 2. 2254, question challenge "factual issue" subject 2254(d), requires federal reviewing accord any findings courts issues" "presumption correctness." Patton Yount, 467 1025, 104 2885, 81 847. This rule applies trial court's determination, such made case, sentencing cause. 426-430. 3. Under facts There were adequate "written indicia" judge's factual finding satisfy 2254(d). transcript shows questioned presence both counsel judge, end colloquy between prosecutor challenged cause, sustained. Nothing more required. judge required write specific announce record conclusion reasons why, biased. therefore "presumed correct" absent anything showing enumerated statute avoiding presumption. are fairly supported record, here there ample support have prevented impaired juror. 430-435. 714 F.2d 1069 (CA11 1983) 723 769, 1984) reversed. Robert J. Landry, New Orleans, La., petitioner. William C. McLain, Fort Myers, Fla., respondent. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 case us examine once again procedures selection criminal trials involving possible imposition see 776 (1968), consider standards those upon corpus. 2 * Johnny Witt murder committed while friend bow-and-arrow hunting. showed two spoken together other occasions about killing human, even stalked persons stalk animal prey. day question, respondent, then aged 30, younger accomplice hunting wooded area near trail often used children. When victim, 11-year-old boy, rode bicycle, respondent's hit child head star bit drill. gagged stunned placed him trunk car, drove deserted grove. Upon opening trunk, conspirators discovered victim died suffocating gag. various sexual violent acts body, dug grave buried it. 3 recommendation jury, appeal raised number claims, Court's supra. sentence, certiorari. State, 342 So.2d 497, cert. denied, 434 935, 98 422, 54 294 (1977). petitioning 387 922 (Fla.), 449 1067, 101 796, 66 612 (1980), United States Middle Florida, raising numerous constitutional claims. Eleventh Circuit writ. 1983), modified, 769 1984). 4 only claim found meritorious claim. following exchange during dire, veniremember Colby, insufficient justify Colby's excusal cause:1 5 "[Q. Prosecutor:] Now, let me ask you ma'am. Do religious beliefs personal penalty? 6 "[A. Colby:] I am afraid personally not— 7 "[Q]: Speak up, please. 8 "[A]: being little personal, definitely religious. 9 interfere sitting case? 10 would. 11 You would? 12 Yes, Sir. 13 Would judging guilt innocence Defendant 14 think so. 15 16 17 Your honor, move point. 18 "THE COURT: All right. Step down." Tr. 266-267. 19 Defense did object attempt rehabilitation. held State infringes right Sixth Fourteenth Amendments excuses all members venire who express conscientious objections punishment. As noted, however, also recognized State's legitimate interest excluding whose allow view proceedings impartially, might frustrate administration scheme. footnote 21; 21 clear (1) automatically developed before them, (2) guilt." U.S., (emphasis original). 22 construed our decisions expressing "great leeway" expressions dismissal "A concede feelings possibly color objective determination admitting necessary partiality excusal." F.2d, 1076-1080. concluded venireman Colby reprinted above standard. limited "feelings thoughts" failed "unequivocally unable apply . ." Id., 1082. part, ambiguity caused prosecutor's questions. "interfere" ambiguous, fact "interference" requirement sentence circumstances. its consistent precedent applying See Granviel Estelle, 655 673 (CA5 1981); Burns 626 396 1980). 23 footnote, noted uncertainty over should accorded presumption correctness governing proceedings, stated, circumstances reach same result regardless review. 1083, 10. Because raises questions considerable confusion lower concerning degree deference pay Darden Wainwright, 725 1526, 1528-1530 1984); O'Bryan 365 465 1013, 1015, 79 245 (1984); Texas Mead, 1041, 1043, 1318, 1320, (1984) (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting denial certiorari), what seemed general surrounding application we 466 957, 2168, 80 551. We reverse. II 24 best understood context facts. involved Illinois. Illinois statute, asked decide "the penalty" case. Another provided: 25 "In shall shall, examined, has scruples opposed same." 512, 1772. 26 Pursuant nearly half veniremen Witherspoon's "expressed qualms punishment." 513, procedure obtained Amendment, rather "uncommonly willing condemn man die." 521, 1776. It "a cannot carried out imposed recommended chosen simply voiced expressed infliction." 1777. 27 Despite holding, later opinions referred language similar 9, setting exclusion See, e.g., Maxwell Bishop, 398 262, 265, 90 1578, 1580, 221 (1970); Boulden Holman, 394 478, 482, 89 1138, 1140, 433 (1969);2 Hackathorn Decker, 438 1363, 1366 1971); People Washington, 71 Cal.2d 1061, 1091-1092, Cal.Rptr. 567, 584-585, 458 P.2d 479, 496-497 (1969). Later cases penalty, mind must "unambiguous," clear." 398. But recent demonstrate no ritualistic adherence [she] Lockett Ohio, 586, 595-596, 2954, 2959-2960, 57 973 (1978), asked: 29 " '[D]o feel could take oath well truely [sic ] try follow law, your so strong oath, knowing possibility exists punishment?' 30 answered "take oath" excluded. Although alluded second dealing inability impartially guilt, refer language. Instead, determined each 'unmistakably clear' trusted 'abide existing law' 'to conscientiously instructions' judge." 596, 2960. 31 examined 581 (1980). scheme, wherein answer three put judge. impose affirmatively. A provided 'shall disqualified unless mandatory imprisonment life will affect deliberations issue fact.' 42, 2525. Before deciding certain pursuant attempted discern determination. discussed prior opinions, noting recognition, retained "legitimate obtaining obey oaths." 44, 2526. concluded: 32 "This line establishes proposition based oath. insist, law charged court." 2526 added). 33 went hold applied acknowledgment "affect" meant indicate emotionally task "with greater seriousness gravity." 49, 2528.3 reasoned "effect" unwilling oaths. 34 leaves difficult distinguishing who, though nevertheless adduced trial. event, obviously differs markedly 21. tests respect originally prongs, merged; never now missing; gone too extremely high burden proof. general, simplified. 35 good reason why test preferable exclusion. First, although principles arrived do believe can squared present-day juries. vested unlimited discretion choice Given discretion, arguably able "follow abide choosing "proper" understanding veniremembers deemed excludable guilt. 36 Furman Georgia, 408 238, 92 2726, 346 (1972), Gregg 428 153, 96 2909, 49 859 (1976), juries longer invested discretion. many questions, factual, determine appropriate sense penalty; standards, still refuses statutory scheme truthfully To hold, name Amendment sit despite impartially.4 37 Second, statements footnotes event dicta. focused excluded; unnecessary be. similarly rejected "not controlling." McDaniel Sanchez, 452 130, 141, 2224, 2231, 68 724 (1981). 38 Finally, traditional determinations made. begin reiterating Adams' "Witherspoon ground challenging limitation power exclude 47-48, 2527-2528. Exclusion began recognition administering schemes extend beyond removing particular jurors. nothing talismanic merely involves grounded Eighth Amendment's prohibition cruel unusual Amendment. elsewhere, quest find "impartial" consists of, think, defendant crime, entitled legal allows seated quite likely biased favor. 39 situation where adversary wishes bias, then, demonstrate, through questioning, potential lacks impartiality. Reynolds States, 145, 157, L.Ed. 244 (1879). duty proper. is, course, outlined Adams, equally true party seeks 1036, 2891, 847 (where sought excuse refused, "did [the] swear set aside evidence, protestations impartiality believed"). 40 opportunity clarify reaffirm above-quoted oath."5 note likewise reduced question-and-answer sessions obtain results manner catechism. What common realized experience proved: enough point clear"; these know how react faced imposing articulate, wish hide feelings.6 printed situations left definite impression faithfully law. For fully infra, paid sees hears 41 below least part; Since portions Appeals' suggest proceed discuss another very important challenges—the bias. III 42 arises correctness" 2254(d).7 relied section 80-545-CIV-T-GC (MD May 14, 1981), reversal "under rigorous appellate review." 2254(d) finding, subsequently adopted position "mixed fact" section. 1528-1530. 43 recently decided scope Rushen Spain, 464 114, 453, 78 267 (1983); Marshall Lonberger, 459 103 843, 74 646 Sumner Mata, 455 591, 102 1303, 480 (1982) (Sumner ); 539, 764, 722 (1981) ). These emphasized state-court correctness. II, 597, 10, 1307, 10; Cuyler Sullivan, 446 335, 342, 1708, 1715, 64 333 (1980).8 Last Term, Patton, traditionally culminating venireman's mind. demeanor credibility peculiarly within province.9 Such direct review; "[t]he proceeding certainly less." 1038, 2892.10 44 Patton's 1529, reached contrary viewed fact." labored misapprehension 21—which strict standard" proof." 1528. complex reasoned, alone issues; interpret light function fact, independent 45 always easy separate "fact" purposes, cf. 1037, 12, 2892, 12. clear, foregoing discussion exclusion, reasoning destined based. Once different innumerable control. course some kind hears, predominant easily discerned record. 46 way denigrate importance jury. reiterate stressed Dennis 339 162, 168, 70 519, 94 734 (1950): "[T]he serious actual broad rulings challenges therefor. exercising zealous protect rights accused." IV 47 Turning facts, conclude Applying analysis already covered Nor seriously urge "determination after hearing merits." argue, "evidenced written opinion, reliable indicia disagree. 48 judge; prosecution cause; sustained "step statute. Anyone familiar practice knows reporter furnish accurate account said courtroom. regularly relies rulings; uncommon extemporaneous bench. Our strengthened available alternatives. decline memorandum excused. job senseless make-work. biased, reasoning. evident 433, 850. noteworthy elaboration necessary; defense fit recusal, rehabilitation.11 50 present here. paragraphs applicable; rest exception paragraph 8—that supported" "as whole." attacks ways. notes first questioned, claims correct stated occasions, presumed one. 850; LaVallee Delle Rose, 410 690, 694-695, 93 1203, 1205-1206, 637 (1973); Townsend Sain, 372 293, 314-315, 745, 757-758, 770 (1963). addition, every indication indeed participate subsequent questioning. entirely standard.12 believe, seems suggest, changed time veniremen. 51 Respondent's contention ambiguous her. due use word Colby; necessarily impartially. agrees mean "prevent" (the key passage opinion), reasonable understand "make difficult," "create emotional turmoil," "impair, substantially." corollary, suggests posited than answer, defer since worthless question. agreed 'interfere' admits great variety interpretations," extent "interference." 52 If brash undertake treatise synonyms antonyms, agree dictionary definitions identical "prevent." verb stating excusing word, other, thousands Adams; met "fairly "record considered whole enunciated "would Relevant addressed need framed exclusively controlling opinion; all, intricate devise will. 53 432, 849, disagree findings, Here four One meaning obstacle." argues obstacle insurmountable; contrary. 434, 851: "As aptly York Appeals, substantive nature: 'Face face living witnesses original trier holds advantage judges doubtful exercise observation proves most method ascertaining truth. How say wrong? saw witnesses. sophistication sagacity confides appraisal.' Boyd Boyd, 252 N.Y. 429, 169 N.E. 632, 634." 55 Thus, whatever court, aided undoubtedly assessment demeanor, resolve favor State. chose himself, resolved perceived ambiguities questions; absence conspicuous dire. Indeed, appears courtroom sitting. this, crystal readily apparent viewing 56 misses mark; hopefully imbued fair amount applicable whole. free interrupt statement. indicates anybody trouble Colby. purposes precisely parsing transcripts create problems collateral none seen "clear convincing erroneous," reverse judgment Appeals.13 58 ordered. STEVENS, concurring judgment. 59 contains much resolution join it.1 Much inconsistent announced entire continues endorse today.2 majority, identify critical disposition case.3 60 attempt, either cross-examination serve wanted serve. examination specifically few lines quoted Ante, 415-416. contrast counsel's silence excused, reaction motion Kazmierczak illuminating. 61 answering stated: "I don't [my penalty] person, outcome destiny, go along penalty." 273. moved objected, further ensued, concern "that State," unequivocally responded: bring back 341. thus demonstrates 62 objection Kazmierczak, notwithstanding stronger testimony indicating lends credence hypothesis competent deliberate want juror.4 gruesome ante, 414, somewhat timorous responses, appearance persuaded prefer vigorous less reluctant juror.5 possibility, failure constitutes error fundamental infects validity case.6 63 Accordingly, concur judgment.7 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. Adhering my prohibited Amendments, 227, 2950, affirm vacates Witt's Even thought otherwise, presently prevailing Constitution permit exact awesome taking life, basic justice demands lives dies poisoned defendant. guarantee "reflect[s] profound enforced administered. Providing accused peers [gives] inestimable safeguard corrupt overzealous compliant, eccentric Duncan Louisiana, 155-156, 1444, 1450-1451, 491 (1968). 1776, "death qualification"—the cases, dangerously erode "inestimable safeguard" creating unrepresentative 44-45, 48-50, 2528-2529, risk, progeny exceptionally permitting 67 correctly stringent Reversing decision, today abandons limits death-qualification instead exclusions evaluated cause.1 Championing purged defendant, shown itself ignore crucial: inevitable purity room neutral drawn cross community penalty,2 identifiable segment Until constitutionally impermissible place hands jury; notions demand bear risk wholly perfect neutrality cannot, assuredly cannot,3 achieved. Today ensure fail permits verdict vanquishes inappropriate. A. 69 forthright today's departs progeny, acknowledge protect, detailed exposition order. typical significant leeway impartiality.4 Broad generally permitted jurors, pressed possess ability lay prejudices Although, "any broader basis" unambiguously serves interest, typically sake convenience disserves crucial perception effect kinds not. No systemic skew nature composition individuals random idiosyncratic traits lead contrast, keeps class people off systemically hanging juries, tribunals disposed 523, 1778. unlikely represent community, verdicts reflect community's doubt guilty deserving opposes "proof doubt" stricter threshold noncapital comports 50, 2529. 519-520, 1775-1776. Cf. Peters Kiff, 407 493, 503-504, 2163, 2168-2169, (1972) (opinion MARSHALL, J.) ("It group consistently order deprives perspective human events unsuspected importance"); Ballard 329 187, 193-194, 261, 264, 91 181 (1946) (discussing "subtle interplay influence other" among varying perspectives). 72 not, ban inquiry into acknowledged, points out, encompasses distort accommodated protected interests requiring proof particular, precluded speculative case; "[a] favors it, discretionary entrusted takes juror." Accord, 483-484, 1141-1142, Beyond prohibiting imposed, recognizes, "extremely proof" 421. "unambiguous" clear," 515-516, 1773-1774, law.5 73 Three consequences flow 's abiding tasks psychologically difficult, nor faith "reasonable 48-51, 2528-2529. precludes responses inquiries vacillating. Third, oaths Schnapper, Taking Seriously: Search Death-Qualified Jurors, L.Rev. 977, 981-993 (1984). restrictions trace narrowly compass permissible allocate cost unavoidable They way, reason, allocates crime. re Winship, 397 358, 370-373, 1068, 1075-1077, 368 (1970) (Harlan, concurring). At rise level "conscious distortion bias." 46, 2527. Many others respond uncertainty, ambiguity, evasion, self-contradiction process. arrives turn affected prospect render judgment; neither eventuality divined stage. 75 disadvantage unbiased equivalent inclusion favoring disfavoring Because—at until today—we risks oppose far predispose 1075-1077 concurring); Speiser Randall, 357 525-526, 1332, 1341-1342, 1460 (1958) ("There litigation margin Where stake transcending value—as liberty—this process placing ."). prohibits evasive, uncertain 76 came essence embedded supra; portion reads: 77 "[N]othing bears execute unmistakably 522-523, 1777-1778, two-part inquiry, notes, 419, carries significance. Its purpose expose vel non prong) prong).6 forms passed muster long directed E.g., 2526; (1978). depart mean, form repeatedly Thus summarily reversing decisions, invalidated sentences impartial. Pruett 403 946, 2284, 857 (1971), rev'g Ohio St.2d 167, 248 N.E.2d 605 (1969); 947, 2273, 855 Wash.2d 650, 558 Mathis Jersey, 2277, N.J. A.2d And approved 2960 (quoting 21). Most recently, reaffirmed impermissible. B comprehensive makes correct. implement accomodation 'uncommonly die,' 1069, 1076-1080 1777), necessity unusually state's effort administer otherwise valid scheme." Following articulated burdens places State: "[A] qualifies 82 49-50, "statements fall short certainty traced part frame appropriately unambiguous manner," meet Ibid. Specifically, criticized examination: 84 "The interpretations, unnatural with, 'color,' 'affect' determinations. response inability, fails profundity 'interference.' 85 Though fashion around "interfere," base divergence precise 1083.7 Rather, improper. statement "judging [of defendant]," was, held, sufficiently principles. perfectly congruent Adams. ordered resentencing—not retrial—for requirements.8 86 ironically, authority invokes below. taken tacit admission validate casts substantial retrenchment; Adams," Court, "differs ]." reads eschewing unthinking propounded quarrel. 445-446. purports renunciation 421 ("[G]one proof"). saying distinction types Had lenient governed, asserts, disturbed. 87 desert brazenly revisionist reading behind. REHNQUIST, "expand[ed]" restrictions. 52, 2530. Virtually considering read endorsement approach encapsulated 1528-1529 (en banc); Davis Zant, 721 1478, 1486 1983); Spencer 715 1562, 1576 Hance 696 940, 954 691 706, 709 1982); 396, 397-398 1980); Herring 1049, 1055 (Fla.1984); Velasquez, Cal.3d 461, 171 507, 622 952 (1980); Gaines, Ill.2d 351-352, Ill.Dec. 795, 800, 430 1046, 1051 (1981); Mercer, 618 S.W.2d 1, (Mo.1981) banc). look text approval "clearly designed" accommodate interest. Reaffirming exclude," "if barred service 'any basis' oaths, out. 21." 48, 2528. impair" id., 2527 intended abandon intent approving quotation and, importantly, delineation explicitly invest seriousness, ibid., affirmatively determinations, "who frankly prospects honest deem "they aver honestly convinced [a] doubt." new significantly difference lie freedom freedom, established. 445-446; 2959-2960. departure discard uncertain, vacillating, Instead instructed evaluate vacillation "might 416 added).9 so, essence, shifted debases guarantees. Rewriting suit relieved justification; invoking precedent, dodges obligation provide deprive protections fundamental. Nonetheless, perhaps calls explanation, offered preferring misleadingly "Adams test." Stripped false lustre precedential force, justifications jointly severally abandonment justification linked changes role cases. unfettered withhold empaneling guided govern sentencing. 422. candor, mentioned prompted REHNQUIST's dissent 2530 ("[A]t re-examining doctrinal underpinnings intervening expands remained static"). curious marshaled "test" purportedly derived More point, Without doubt, inquire particulars approach, receiving negative existence diminishes composed mitigating Eddings Oklahoma, 104, 869, (1982), individual Woodson North Carolina, 280, 2978, 944 (1976). Constitution, sentencer sensitive 'consideration character offender offense a[n] indispensable inflicting death.' Eddings, 112, 875 Woodson, 304, 2991). judgments "is science, unavoidably range remaining doubt. assessments inherent system, slightest law." 95 minimize defining are, prevalent schemes. so-called test" up dictum. dictum affirmative adopting alternative advances today. Were leave label "dictum" convey status embodied achieved last decade half. 445, 450-451. From (1969), (1970), invalidate scrupled concedes acknowledges "se[t] 418. 97 third proffered made." 423. followed excludes grounds using type bias: "exclu[sion of] 429. core lies unbridgeable chasm. crux "innumerable illuminates difference. allegation unrelated scruples, Smith Phillips, 209, (1982). If, suggests, 423, thrust sense. relevant stake, focus replaced impartial; harm 99 sort injury systematic punishment: 20, distinct 520, presuming sufficient means minimized. eliminates protections. rejects death-qualification, doing indulges prohibited: "we favor." 423 trick majority clear. recognize designed safeguard. jurors; "[h]ere, facts." overall predisposed representative community. established reflects supporting execution crime crosses disappear. legerdemain offer analogy argue standards. 423-424. explain needed. bad eager well-established efficient precipitate step, having done longer. preserving integrity factfinder voice protection defendant: guarantees Constitutions defendants oppression Government. gave preferred common-sense tutored sympathetic single provisions official power—a reluctance entrust plenary powers liberty citizen judges. Fear unchecked power, Governments respects, expression insistence participation innocence." (1968) (footnote omitted). Crucial body truly community." 311 128, 164, 165, (1940). Taylor 419 692, 690 (1975), "[t]his prophylactic vehicle pool special segments populace large, distinctive groups pool." 530, 697. fraught threats guarantees.10 "overzealous judge," 156, 1451, particularly acute Passions, know, run extreme tries barbaric act society, that—for reason—inflames Pressures government secure conviction, "do something," overwhelm conscience. 1053, 2900 (STEVENS, dissenting). prosecutors elected, harbor political ambitions, pressures dangerous. Spaziano 468 447, 467, 3154, 3167, 340 part). With invariably brought bear, controls deathqualification imperative. Death-qualification works prosecutor; carefully controlled, tool convict11 ultimate sanction. 106 threatens undermines society's full "One functions perform death] maintain link contemporary values penal system—a hardly 'the evolving decency mark progress maturing society.' 15, 1775, Trop Dulles, 356 86, 101, 590, 598, 630 WARREN, C.J.)). STEVENS wrote sanction justified expresses moral sensibility—its affront humanity retribution—it follows responsibility decision." 481, 3174 (concurring 107 others, skewed unpardonable. Of equal gravity implications "quest facts," 423—if, words, pertinent impartial, Duren Missouri, 439 357, 371, , 664, 672, 579 (1979) dissenting); 538, 701 dissenting)—then lost. 108 unexplained evisceration troubling accomplishment pass comment. redefinition receives 109 maintained trial-court Whether strength question"—an undisputed historical fact. accept applicability persuasively demonstrated disqualifies mixed fact," 1052, 2899, 'whether formed raise partiality.' Ibid., Irvin Dowd, 366 717, 723, 1639, 1643, 751 (1961)). V 110 Today's product saddening confluence disturbing trends jurisprudence respecting people. unseemly eagerness enforcement expedient sacrifices interests. Leon, 897, 929-930, 3405, 3430, 677 (BRENNAN, increasing disaffection previously unquestioned principle, endorsed Member "because severity irrevocability, qualitatively hence accompanied unique safeguards. 468, 3167 Pulley Harris, 37, 871, 461-464, 3162-3164 Court); Barclay 463 939, 3418, 1134 (1983). increasingly expansive definition "questions calling thwart vindication courts. desolate truth: lost transcendent Bill Rights society. 980, 3456 dissenting) ("[I]t sacrificed expediency"). own Madisonian "guardians" rights. Annals Cong. (1789) (remarks James Madison). Like death-qualified mold enhance chances victory, adjunct facilitating irrespective Constitution's hope soon pass. argued cause—veniremen Gehm, Miller—were Mrs. "least instructed," 1081 example venireman, Gehm Miller. cited 9: "Unless matter reveal, assumed position." Maxwell, 1580; Boulden, 1140 Jenson, excluded: 'Well, probably [affect deliberations] afterall ], you're talking man's lightly.' 7, 2529, 7. deliberations. references decisionmaking discounted. statutes Arkansas Alabama, respectively, apparently allowed "conscientious" to, "believe in," 264-265, 1141-1142. chides detail remedy defect devoting page exegesis decision. exegesis, latter-day version "fair section" theme barely adumbrated opinion. accepting dissent's represented balancing panel community"—which logical avowed law—against bias—which panels philosophical bearing instructions. adhere essential balance struck rendered 1968, presented dissent; modify "class" example, excerpts Pfeffer 365, 379 (1984): 'THE Well, answer. '[A]: understand, prejudicial side sides just keep open mind, be, circumstances, exist exist, return verdict. that's they're asking. Indirectly, guess no. not? give yes Then, virtue horrible say, know. to. Right. alive knows, Mr. Pfeffer. Right, understand. no, couldn't judgment.' Some period later, answer: yourself Is correct? says yes, against, answer.' Section provides: instituted person custody merits issue, jurisdiction applicant officer agent thereof parties, evidenced indicia, correct, establish appear, admit— "(1) dispute hearing; "(2) factfinding employed afford "(3) material adequately "(4) lacked proceeding; "(5) indigent deprivation right, appoint "(6) receive full, fair, "(7) "(8) made, sufficiency produced hereinafter, consideration concludes record: "And evidentiary respectively forth numbered (7), inclusive, applicant, appears, admitted (8) proceeding, whole, erroneous." Cuyler, determination[s] 156-157, (1879), testifying oftentimes indicative real words. below, spread Care should, therefore, ruling except case." 392 (Higginbotham, specially), Judge Higginbotham artfully discusses factors, heard dictate He mandated finality—to preserve "entrance gate" collecting review, comity federalism mechanisms 1551 (Fay, stating, "waived" Wainwright Sykes, 72, 2497, 594 (1977), failing contemporaneously object. spite object, 497 rely disposing us. Ulster County Allen, 442 140, 154, 2213, 2223, 777 (1979). Nevertheless, speak rife constitute circumstance assessing contemporaneous-objection challenges. Brown 381 693-694 Ms. Kazmierczak: Wait minute, haven't yet. Just seat. Let things. prefixed ideas all? Not all. Will you? that. concerned Hill: ma'am, verdict, That's shebang there. wouldn't—I saying, concern. Pardon? that." 372. today, address incorrect affirmance engaged soliciting psychiatric, psychological, reports mental condition backgrounds introduced proceedings. Ford Strickland, 804, 811 (CA11), 865, 201, 176 (1983), accepted Florida's disturb essentially Appeals. binding future expressly endorses opinion: initial matter, peradventure exclude: out." post, 450 joined "Defense rehabilitation." 416. 430-431. "Nevertheless, [v. (1968),] (Fla.1980)." 431, 11. "We dire." 434-435. suggested, sheds significance alleged absolute procedural bar Engle Isaac, 456 107, 136 1558, 1576, 783 part) ("The felt client's presumably, fundamentally unfair"); 96, 2511, (1977) concurring) persuades in-custody statement"). Earlier admonished louder, 237-238, inconvenient jury: "Well, lose work. plans—of [holiday] post office concerned—so today." 238. She added arrangements to." 239. Rose Lundy, 509, 544-545, 1198, 1216-1217, "No, not." 296. Miller's follows: wouldn't Court? comes down wouldn't. Okay. Regardless law? No, sir." 356. depicted lurid details careful skill pointillist. diligent rendering neglected mention vacated. However heinous majority's vivid portrait deserves die. peers, conformity requirements Amendments. violated but, fragmentary time, declined underlying unconstitutionally infirm conviction-prone. 517-518, 1774-1775. 11, infra. Gross, Determining Neutrality Juries, Law Human Behavior 26-28 W. Lafave & Israel, Criminal Procedure 21.3 defined variation significant; primary remains complete lived died. circumstances—who, it—could time. slavishly devoted wording 21's 432-434. cursory belies representation turning semantic quibble "synonyms antonyms." 433. rejecting argument evaluation "totality circumstances." 1083. insofar elicit weight on, gives determinative 430-431, 434-435; 437-438 judgment). enforce ruled violation, Nonetheless views, rehabilitation testimony, rebut reliance competence attentiveness. infers silence, declaration rehabilitate venireperson. resolves "harmless error" STEVENS' improper replaces 429 122, 123, 399, 400, Particularly continue preclude harmless-error treated recognizes death-qualifications large "veniremen 425. goes ascribe divine law," 426, reason. surprisingly, provides remarkable assertion will, response, perceive himself herself yet hand. involve functional pool. uses remove studies confirmed Sequin Horowitz, Effects "Death Qualification" Juror Jury Decisioning: An Analysis Perspectives, Psychology Rev. Fitzgerald Ellsworth, Due Process vs. Crime Control: Death Qualification Attitudes, Cowan, Thompson, Jurors' Predisposition Convict Quality Deliberation, Harrington, Penalty Attitudes Conviction Proneness: Translation Verdicts, suggested tends prosecution. Haney, Selection Capital Juries: Biasing Death-Qualification Process, 121 empirical convict Grigsby Mabry, 569 F.Supp. 1273 (ED Ark.1983) (appeal en banc pending Circuit). district effect, Keeton Garrison, 578 1164 (WDNC 1984), Fourth 742 129 (CA recognizing creates risks, contours thereby enhances erroneous convictions sentences.

Classification Label: 0