Potts v. Georgia

1989-11-27

Headline: Court declines review, leaving Georgia’s death sentence and ruling that limited juror questioning about parole may be barred, making it harder for capital defendants to probe juror bias about parole.

Holding: The Court denied review of Potts’ appeal and left in place the state court’s handling of his death sentence, including the trial judge’s refusal to allow broader juror questioning about parole during sentencing.

Real World Impact:

Leaves Georgia’s death sentence and state court rulings intact.
Limits defendants’ ability to question jurors about parole during sentencing.
Makes it harder for capital defendants to detect juror bias about parole.

Topics: death penalty, jury selection, parole considerations, capital sentencing

Summary

Background

Jack Howard Potts was convicted of murder and faced a death sentence. During the jury selection stage, several potential jurors volunteered that their choice between death and life would depend on how likely parole would be if they imposed life. Georgia law prohibited jurors from considering parole when deciding punishment. The trial judge asked some jurors if they could ignore parole, and some said they could not. The defense asked to question more jurors about their views on parole, but the court refused. The jury later asked about parole, was told to ignore it, and recommended death.

Reasoning

The central question raised by Justice Marshall’s opinion is whether a defendant must be allowed to question prospective jurors about their ability to follow a state law that bars consideration of parole. Marshall argues that when jurors openly say parole would affect them, the defendant should be allowed to probe those attitudes so he can remove biased jurors. He relies on prior decisions that let defendants explore clear, specific risks of prejudice during jury questioning and says the trial court’s refusal undermined Potts’ right to a jury that will follow the law.

Real world impact

The Court declined to review Potts’ case, leaving the state court outcome in place. That means the trial court’s limits on questioning remained effective in this case. For capital defendants in states that bar juror consideration of parole, the decision (by denial of review) can make it harder to test whether jurors will follow instructions and set aside parole concerns when deciding between life and death.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the denial of review. He would have granted review and either vacated the death sentence or at least decided that defendants must be allowed to test jurors’ ability to ignore parole.