Davis v. Florida

Background

A man was charged with the beating and shooting of a woman and her two young daughters in Duval County, Florida. Local newspapers and prime-time broadcasts widely reported the crime and disclosed prejudicial details, including a failed lie-detector test, prior violent convictions, parole status, and other incriminating information. The defendant asked for a change of venue and for individual, sequestered questioning of potential jurors; he attached affidavits from 15 local attorneys saying a fair jury was impossible in Duval County. During group questioning, at least 10 of 40 potential jurors said they knew about the case; the judge refused individual questioning and later denied the venue motion.

Reasoning

The central question raised was whether a trial judge must permit individual juror questioning when pretrial publicity creates a significant risk of bias. Justice Marshall’s dissent explains that the issue is not merely whether jurors were actually biased, but whether the defense was deprived of the chance to learn about bias and use challenges to remove biased jurors. He cited past decisions and lower-court rulings that, under similar publicity, required more than general group questions. The State courts treated the claim largely as a matter of state law and found no abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court, however, simply denied review, so it did not decide the constitutional question.

Real world impact

By denying review, the Court left the Florida conviction and death sentence intact and left unresolved whether the Constitution requires private individual juror questioning in heavily publicized cases. Trial judges retain broad discretion over voir dire, and the precise constitutional rule about when individual questioning is required remains undecided at the national level.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the denial and would have granted review to decide when individual voir dire is constitutionally required.