Witherspoon v. Illinois

1968-06-03

Headline: Court strikes down practice of excluding people opposed to the death penalty, blocking death sentences from juries assembled by removing such jurors and changing capital case jury selection.

Holding: The Court held that a death sentence cannot be carried out when the jury that imposed it was chosen by excluding jurors for cause merely because they voiced general objections or conscientious scruples against capital punishment.

Real World Impact:

Stops death sentences from juries selected by removing jurors who oppose capital punishment.
Forces prosecutors to narrow cause challenges to those who cannot consider death in any circumstance.
Leaves convictions intact but requires new sentencing or jury procedures in affected cases.

Topics: death penalty, jury selection, capital sentencing, fair trial

Summary

Background

A man tried for murder in Cook County, Illinois, was convicted and sentenced to death after a jury was chosen following an Illinois law that allowed excusing any juror who said they had conscientious scruples or were opposed to capital punishment. The prosecution used that rule to remove roughly 47 prospective jurors, nearly half the venire, before the jury that convicted and sentenced him was selected. The Illinois Supreme Court denied relief, and the case reached this Court.

Reasoning

The Court addressed a narrow question about who a State may exclude from a capital jury. It said the State may remove jurors who are plainly unable to decide guilt or who would automatically refuse to consider the death penalty, but may not exclude veniremen simply because they voice general opposition or conscientious scruples against capital punishment. Because the jury here was culled of all such doubters, the Court concluded the sentencing body was not impartial in its penalty role and could not be trusted to decide life-or-death fairly.

Real world impact

The ruling invalidates death sentences imposed by juries chosen by excluding people simply for opposing the death penalty and requires states to change voir dire and jury-selection practices in capital cases. The Court applied the rule fully retroactively to the case before it. The decision left the underlying conviction intact while overturning the death sentence.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices dissented or wrote separately. Some warned that the ruling interferes with state lawmaking and jury selection, argued the majority unfairly criticizes Illinois courts, or emphasized the cross-section requirement for juries. Others urged a different test for bias and urged deference to state procedures.