Rector v. Arkansas

Background

A man convicted and sentenced to death in Arkansas asked this Court to review his case. He argued that potential jurors who said they could not accept the death penalty were excluded from deciding his guilt, and that this exclusion denied his right to have guilt decided by a jury that reflects the community. The Arkansas Supreme Court left the conviction and death sentence in place. A federal district court in Arkansas had recently granted relief in a similar case, and the State Attorney General joined the request for this Court to resolve the disagreement.

Reasoning

The central question was whether excluding people with conscientious objections to the death penalty from the guilt phase makes a jury unfair. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, said this raised a substantial constitutional issue worth review. He noted past decisions permit such exclusions for sentencing but questioned extending that practice to guilt determinations. He pointed to empirical studies suggesting jurors favoring the death penalty are more likely to convict, and he highlighted conflicting lower-court rulings on the point.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to review the petition, the Arkansas judgment and death sentence remain effective. The unresolved legal question about excluding anti-death-penalty jurors from guilt decisions continues to cause conflicting outcomes in different courts. Trial practices and defendant outcomes in capital cases may therefore continue to vary until the issue is decided in a future case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall would have granted review and, based on his view that the death penalty is always unconstitutional, would have vacated the sentence. His dissent focuses on the jury-selection issue, cites empirical research, and stresses the direct conflict between the Arkansas decision and a federal district court ruling.