Court Opinion

ID: 9732578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:26:49.332874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:59.689042
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SIMON, dissenting: The defendant in this case attempted to waive a jury for the penalty phase prior to his trial in order to avoid having prospective jurors death-qualified or “Wither-spooned.” The waiver was refused, and the jury was Witherspooned. The defendant tendered another waiver after the guilt phase, which was accepted, and the judge alone sat at the sentencing hearing. The question which the majority opinion does not and, I think, cannot answer is what legitimate purpose there could be for death-qualifying a jury which will have nothing to do with sentencing. We recognized the impropriety of such a practice and resolved this problem on June 20, 1986, in Daley v. Hett (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 75, yet in this case the court eviscerates Hett, leaving it without meaning. After this decision all we know is that the defendant has the right to waive his sentencing jury before trial, but we are left wondering why he would ever want to do so if such a waiver does not preclude voir dire questioning designed to put the death penalty question at the forefront of the jurors’ minds. The majority opinion offers up a veritable shopping list of alternative reasons why the defendant is not entitied to a new trial under Hett. It first suggests, for example, that Hett did not decide that a trial judge must accept a knowing and intelligent pretrial waiver of the jury for sentencing. Instead, says the majority, the court only held that a trial judge has discretion to accept a pretrial waiver. This conclusion misreads Hett. The waiver question there was phrased in terms of the trial court’s ability to accept a pretrial waiver only because of the procedural posture in which the case arose — attempts by the State to compel two judges to refuse pretrial sentencing jury waivers. But the holding and the rationale of Hett made clear that the defendant is “accorded the right” (Daley v. Hett (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 75, 82) to waive a sentencing jury at any time under the “clear and unambiguous” (113 Ill. 2d 75, 81) language of the Criminal Code of 1961. Nothing in our opinion suggested that the decision to accept a knowing and intelligent waiver was discretionary; indeed, it is obvious that there could be no basis for the exercise of such discretion. On what ground other than judicial caprice could a judge refuse a knowing and intelligent waiver? This court’s decision in People v. Shum (1987), 117 Ill. 2d 317, correctly explains Hett as holding that the “defendant had a right to execute a jury waiver for the penalty phase of the trial prior to the commencement of the guilt phase” (117 Ill. 2d 317, 338). After Hett, the majority’s conclusion in this case that the judge must accept a voluntary pretrial waiver of a sentencing jury, as he must accept voluntary waivers of other rights, is merely redundant. Consistent with its stinted reading of Hett on the waiver .issue, the majority asserts that the propriety of death-qualifying a jury which has been waived for sentencing was “also not decided in Hett” (117 Ill. 2d at 288). This is difficult to square with the court’s holding in Hett that the State’s “right under Witherspoon does not come into effect where, as here, the juries that consider the issue of guilt will not consider eligibility for the death penalty.” (Daley v. Hett (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 75, 82.) How this language suggests that the Witherspooning issue has been “left open” (117 Ill. 2d at 288), I cannot understand. As I read Hett, we specifically held that the State had no legitimate reason for Witherspooning a jury which had been waived for sentencing. Whether or not the court admits that the question has already been decided, the answer seems beyond dispute: no justification can be advanced to permit death-qualifying a jury which will not sit at the penalty phase. If such voir dire were permitted in capital cases in which the jury does not pass sentence, why not also in noncapital cases? In both situations, the jurors’ attitudes on the death penalty are immaterial to the only issue they will consider — guilt or innocence — and yet any attempt to Witherspoon a jury in, for example, a simple burglary case (for which the death penalty is not available) would certainly be denounced as improper. Rather than meet the question supposedly left open, the court retreats to the refuge of nonretroactivity, holding that even if Hett means what it clearly says, the rule would not apply to the defendant’s case in which voir dire predated our decision in Hett. This bit of maneuvering unfortunately leaves the issue in a state of limbo so that even in the future trial courts will have no clear guidance as to whether we are for or against Wither-spooning in this situation. The court’s vacillation here, taken together with the decision in Hett, implies that a judge may exercise discretion as to whether or not to permit Witherspooning of a jury voluntarily waived for sentencing prior to trial. There are no standards, though, guiding this determination, and thus “discretion” here is reduced to no more than the whim of the trial judge. Without a uniform, even-handed procedure we can certainly expect additional petitions for mandamus in future capital cases until this matter is finally resolved. For this reason alone I would not avoid the question here. More importantly, no question of retroactivity is even involved here. The majority does not appear to dispute the general rule that judicial decisions apply retroactively (Solem v. Stumes (1984), 465 U.S. 638, 642, 79 L. Ed. 2d 579, 586, 104 S. Ct. 1338, 1341), yet the court fails to advance any reason why this case should fall outside that rule. The question of retroactivity only arises when there has been a change in the law. Swisher v. Duffy (1987), 117 Ill. 2d 376, 380; People v. Britz (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 314, 318-19. There has been no change in the law here. In Hett, we described the statutory provision under which a defendant is permitted to waive a sentencing jury at any time as “clear and unambiguous” (Daley v. Hett (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 75, 81). Since, as Hett also recognized, it makes no sense to death-qualify a jury which will have nothing to say about the death penalty, it should have been equally plain that Witherspooning was impermissible. Prior to our Hett decision several of our able circuit judges recognized this and refused to Witherspoon such juries. (See, e.g., Daley v. Hett (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 75 (Judges Hett and Carey); People v. King (1986), 109 Ill. 2d 514, 543-45 (Judge Miller); People ex rel. Daley v. Strayhorn (June 20, 1986), No. 63498 (Judge Strayhorn); People ex rel. Daley v. Stein (June 5, 1985), No. 61980 (Judge Stein).) The fact that this court had never specifically ordered trial judges to comply with what was obviously the law does not mean that when we finally spoke on the issue the law was changed. There is no reason to rule upon a retroactivity issue where none exists. Even assuming that we should consider whether the Hett rule is to be applied retroactively, there is no justification for belatedly dredging up the discredited analysis of People v. Laws (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 493, which was torpedoed by this court in People v. Martine (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 429. Laws adopted the three-part test articulated in Stovall v. Denno (1967), 388 U.S. 293, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1199, 87 S. Ct. 1967, to find that a new rule of fourth amendment law could not be applied retroactively even on direct review. Subsequent to our decision in Laws, the United States Supreme Court considered the retro-activity of another new fourth amendment rule in United States v. Johnson (1982), 457 U.S. 537, 73 L. Ed. 2d 202, 102 S. Ct. 2579. In Johnson, the court rejected the three-part test with respect to cases on direct review and determined that, as to such cases, new principles of fourth amendment law not marking a clear break with the past had to be applied retroactively. Thereafter, in Martine, this court was again faced with the retroactivity of the same fourth amendment rule as in Laws, and held that “Laws can no longer be followed.” People v. Martine (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 429, 433. It is difficult to understand how the majority could be “persuaded of the continued validity” (117 Ill. 2d at 290) of Laws notwithstanding this history, and despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court has now completely renounced the Stovall analysis insofar as it purports to measure the retroactivity of new principles to cases still pending on direct review. (Griffith v. Kentucky (1987), 479 U.S. 314, 93 L. Ed. 2d 649, 107 S. Ct. 708.) In Griffith, the court abandoned the three-part test and held that new principles of constitutional law must be applied retroactively to all cases still pending on direct review, even if the new rule is a “clear break with the past.” The majority’s effort to salvage the wreck of the three-part Laws analysis in the context of cases on direct review is inconsistent with Griffith. Nevertheless, the majority disregards the true sweep of the Griffith opinion. Without explanation, the court distinguishes this case on the ground that the Griffith rule of automatic retroactivity only applies to cases in which the new principle is one of constitutional law. Griffith did involve the retroactivity of a new constitutional principle. And I agree that this case does not clearly implicate the retroactivity of a new principle of Federal constitutional law. Neither of these facts, however, justifies the court’s summary rejection of Griffith. The majority opinion, by ignoring the reasoning of Griffith, conveys the impression that Griffith was an arbitrary decision and that one rule of retroactivity is as good as another. In my view, the Supreme Court’s reasoning in that case was not only compelling, but as applicable in nonconstitutional cases as in constitutional ones. Griffith was based largely on the Supreme Court’s recognition that “the integrity of judicial review requires that we apply [a new] rule to all similar cases pending on direct review.” (Griffith v. Kentucky (1987), 479 U.S. 314, _, 93 L. Ed. 2d 649, 658, 107 S. Ct. 708, 713.) The court relied on the view earlier advanced by Justice Harlan: “ ‘If we do not resolve all cases before us on direct review in light of our best understanding of governing constitutional principles, it is difficult to see why we should so adjudicate any case at all. ... In truth, the Court’s assertion of power to disregard current law in adjudicating cases before us that have not already run the full course of appellate review, is quite simply an assertion that our constitutional function is not one of adjudication but in effect of legislation.' ” (479 U.S. 314,_, 93 L. Ed. 2d 649, 658, 107 S. Ct. 708, 713, quoting Mackey v. United States (1971), 401 U.S. 667, 679, 28 L. Ed. 2d 404, 413, 91 S. Ct. 1160, 1173 (Harlan, J., concurring).) Denying retroactivity to new nonconstitutional principles, the result sanctioned by the majority in this case, undermines the integrity of the judicial process in precisely the same way: it permits us to adopt a new rule but then to decline to apply the law in a later case. I can see no meaningful difference here which would justify limiting the rule of automatic retroactivity to constitutional cases. Although relying on a purported distinction between new constitutional principles and other new principles of law, the majority fails to defend the distinction or to explain what significance it has. The absence of any attempt by the majority to defend this distinction is hardly unexpected since the StovallLaws test which the majority insists on adhering to suffers exactly the same supposed disability as the Griffith rule the court rejects: it, too, is a rule of retroactivity for constitutional principles. The majority does not come to terms with the fact that Stovall v. Denno also involved the retroactivity of a new principle of constitutional law, the sixth amendment right to have counsel present at certain out-of-court identifications. Similarly, Solem v. Stumes (1984), 465 U.S. 638, 79 L. Ed. 2d 579, 104 S. Ct. 1338, also relied upon by the majority, concerned the retroactivity of a new fifth amendment rule, and Laws a new decision under the fourth amendment. If the Stovall-Laws test, conceived for and applied to constitutional cases, is not, by reason of its origin and application, inapplicable to nonconstitutional cases, it is logically incoherent for Griffith to be rejected because of its creation in a constitutional context. The majority also suggests that Griffith should not apply because the Hett rule (if it exists) is “purely procedural” and “is unrelated to fundamental fairness and the truth-seeking function of a trial.” (117 Ill. 2d at 290.) There are three crucial flaws in this argument. First, the very point of the Griffith decision is that retroactivity with respect to cases still on direct review should not depend “upon the particular characteristics of the new rule adopted by the Court.” (479 U.S. 314,_, 93 L. Ed. 2d 649, 661, 107 S. Ct. 708, 715.) By relying on the purpose of the Hett rule, the majority “reintroduces precisely the type of case-specific analysis” that the Court rejected as inappropriate for cases pending on direct review. 479 U.S. 314, _, 93 L. Ed. 2d 649, 661, 107 S. Ct. 708, 715. Second, the majority’s reliance on the supposition that the Hett rule does not touch the truth-seeking function creates a striking paradox: under the majority’s analysis the purpose to be served by the new rule is both a threshold requirement for employing the three-part Laws test and the first factor in the test. If the majority is correct in its method of determining the applicability of the Laws analysis, Laws will actually become a two-part test, since the purpose factor will automatically weigh against retroactivity whenever the test is triggered. The majority’s ill-advised effort to avoid Griffith makes hash even of the Laws balancing test. Third, the majority’s impression that the retroactivity question here concerns the “statutory right to waive the sentencing jury” (117 Ill. 2d at 290) is mistaken. Perhaps confused by its own alternative holdings, the majority has apparently slipped into the error of suggesting that the question is whether that portion of Hett requiring a judge to accept a pretrial waiver of the sentencing jury is retroactive. That cannot be the correct question, as examination of the majority opinion makes evident. While incorrectly stating that Hett left the waiver question open, the court explicitly holds in this case that a judge must accept a knowing pretrial waiver. (117 Ill. 2d at 287.) Only after so holding does the majority turn to the distinct problem of whether a jury properly waived for sentencing in accordance with the statute can nonetheless be death-qualified (117 Ill. 2d at 288). The retro-activity discussion, therefore, is not about the retroactivity of the statutory right to waive the jury, but about the ability of prosecutors to death-qualify a jury so waived. I cannot agree, for reasons stated later in this opinion, that this issue is either “purely procedural” or one which “in no way implicates the fundamental fairness” (117 Ill. 2d at 289-90) of the trial. As is obvious from what I have stated thus far, the majority has perceived a retroactivity question where there is none and then it has applied the wrong test of retroactivity. But even assuming the three-part Stovall test could be applied, the majority’s interpretation of the factors is insupportable. The second factor in the Stovall analysis is the extent to which law-enforcement officials have justifiably relied upon a prior rule of law supplanted by the new rule. As the majority admits, this court has never suggested that Witherspooning a jury which would have nothing to do with sentencing is necessary, permissible, or sensible. Nor could any appellate court authority have been relied upon here. Although the appellate court held in People v. Wolfbrandt (1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 836, that a sentencing jury could not be waived prior to conviction, Wolfbrandt was filed more than a year after the voir dire of the jury in this case. While the majority acknowledges that Hett “does not replace a prior rule” (117 Ill. 2d at 291), it inexplicably draws the conclusion that the reliance factor is therefore “inapplicable” (117 Ill. 2d at 291) here. If the reliance factor is to make any sense, however, the lack of any justified reliance on a prior rule of law — either because the reliance was unjustified in fact or, as in this case, there was nothing for the State or the courts to rely upon — must weigh in favor of retroactivity. Unsurprisingly, the majority has cited no authority for the proposition that the reliance factor may be neutral or “inapplicable.” Even more puzzling is the majority’s use of the third Stovall factor, the impact on the administration of justice. Without any factual record whatever, or even any facts of which we could take judicial notice, the court speculates that retroactive application of Hett “might well place a severe strain” on the administration of justice. (117 Ill. 2d at 291.) Recognizing that there is nothing to support this conjecture, the majority then thrusts the burden of proving that the impact of Hett would be “manageable” (117 Ill. 2d at 291) on the defendant, and finds that the defendant has made no showing that it would be. The majority offers no authority for the suggestion that one who supports retroactivity has any burden of proving its appropriateness, and I know of none. Since the general rule is that judicial decisions apply retroactively, if any burden exists it should rest upon the party seeking to avoid the general rule — the State. I am at a loss to understand how a defendant on direct appeal of his murder conviction to this court could presume to make such a showing. We have no procedure under which a defendant may engage in discovery while on appeal, and a defendant therefore has no way to obtain the necessary information. By contrast, the relevant factual information is readily available to the State, which must know how many cases are pending on direct appeal in which a jury has been Witherspooned after the defendant waived or tried to waive the jury for the sentencing phase of the proceeding. Since the State has made no such showing, there is no reason to think the retroactive application of Hett would disrupt the administration of justice. Given the weakness of the second and third Stovall factors when applied here, there can be no doubt that even under that test Hett should be applied retroactively. Having already held that Hett does not address the propriety of death-qualifying a jury which has been waived and that, even if it did, the rule announced in Hett is not to be applied retroactively, the majority finds it necessary to bury Hett by precluding any enforcement of the rule on appeal. As the majority sees it, Hett was a useless decision which is better ignored than respected because Witherspooning a jury which does not pass sentence does no harm. The majority reads the defendant’s argument as merely an objection that exclusion of prospective jurors who state that they could not impose the death penalty violates his fourteenth amendment right to an impartial jury; this position is, of course, foreclosed by Lockhart v. McCree (1986), 476 U.S. 169, 90 L. Ed. 2d 137, 106 S. Ct. 1758. The defendant is not saying, though, that his jury fails to measure up under the United States Constitution, but rather that under Illinois law it is improper to distract the jury with the question of sentencing “[wjhere, as in the present case, the jury has nothing to do with fixing the punishment” (People v. Galloway (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 355, 362). Whether or not the jury was so unfair as to run afoul of the fourteenth amendment, it seems plain to me that needlessly injecting the emotional and controversial issue of the death penalty into this case inevitably colored the jury’s deliberations on guilt or innocence. Although this distraction and prejudice may be unavoidable evils when the jury will hear both the guilt and penalty phases of trial, there is no counterbalancing interest which justifies any mention of the death penalty once the jury has been waived for sentencing. If there is such an interest, and that interest in a particular case is weighty enough to overcome the prejudice to the defendant, the State should have the burden of so proving. Needless to say, no such interest has been established here. I would reverse and remand for a new trial. CHIEF JUSTICE CLARK joins in this dissent.