Ross v. Oklahoma

Background

A Black man was tried in Oklahoma for killing a police officer during a motel robbery. Oklahoma law gives nine peremptory challenges in capital trials. During jury selection, a replacement juror said he would automatically vote for death if the defendant were found guilty. The defense asked the judge to remove that juror for cause, but the judge denied the request. The defense then used a peremptory challenge to strike him; the defense eventually used all nine peremptory challenges and the prosecution used five. None of the twelve jurors who decided guilt and sentence was challenged for cause, and the defense later objected that there were no Black jurors on the panel.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the trial court’s error in refusing to excuse the biased juror required overturning the conviction or death sentence. The Court agreed the judge erred in not dismissing that juror, but noted the juror did not sit because the defense struck him. The opinion held that peremptory challenges are not constitutional rights and that, under Oklahoma law, defendants must use peremptory challenges to cure such errors. Because the seated jury was not shown to be biased, the Court concluded the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments were not violated and affirmed the sentence.

Real world impact

The decision means defendants who remove a biased juror with a peremptory may not get automatic reversal, especially where state rules require using peremptories to preserve objections. It upholds the State’s procedure for curing jury-selection errors and narrows the reach of an earlier decision that had sometimes required reversal. Capital defendants and trial judges in similar states will feel this ruling most directly.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall’s dissent argued this ruling endangers the fairness of capital jury selection. He said losing a peremptory to cure the judge’s mistake could have changed the panel and that earlier precedent required reversal.