John Edward Swindler, V

Background

John Swindler was convicted of killing a police officer, had that conviction reversed once, and was retried in a neighboring rural county. During the second trial many potential jurors said they had heard about the earlier trial and believed he was guilty; 98 of 120 venirepersons expressed tentative or firm belief in his guilt. The trial judge repeatedly denied Swindler’s requests to move the trial again, citing an Arkansas statute that forbids a second change of venue.

Reasoning

Swindler argued that the statute and the trial court’s reliance on it prevented a fair, impartial jury because so many jurors had been exposed to prejudicial publicity. The federal district court denied habeas relief and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, accepting the trial court’s finding that the seated jurors could set aside their opinions. The Supreme Court denied review of the case, leaving the conviction and sentence undisturbed.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to hear the case, the state conviction and death sentence remain in place and Arkansas’s rule that bars a second change of venue was not reviewed. The decision leaves unresolved whether absolute venue rules that prevent courts from avoiding prejudiced juries violate the Constitution. For defendants facing heavy local publicity, the practical protections remain determined by state law and lower courts unless this Court later takes the issue.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented from the denial of review, arguing that a state rule framed in absolute terms that prevents trial courts from protecting defendants against prejudicial publicity violates due process; he would have granted review and, in his view, would have vacated the death sentence.