Morgan v. Illinois

Background

Derrick Morgan, convicted of first-degree murder in Illinois for a paid killing, was sentenced to death after a jury found aggravating factors. At trial the judge ran voir dire and the State asked jurors whether they would always refuse death. Morgan’s lawyer asked the court to instead ask whether jurors would automatically vote to impose death if the defendant were convicted. The trial court refused; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the question.

Reasoning

The Justices addressed whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of a fair trial requires that a defendant may, upon request, ask potential jurors on voir dire if they would automatically impose the death penalty following a conviction. The majority said yes: a juror who would always vote for death cannot fairly weigh aggravating and mitigating evidence and is not impartial. Therefore such jurors may be challenged for cause, and courts must allow the requested question to expose them.

Real world impact

The ruling means judges must permit defense-led questioning, on request, to identify jurors who would always impose death. Capital defendants can challenge such jurors for cause; if one serves and the death sentence follows, the sentence cannot stand. The decision does not disturb the conviction itself but may lead to new voir dire, more removals, and retrials or resentencings in some cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia (joined by two others) dissented, arguing that jurors who favor the death penalty are not necessarily biased, that general questions about fairness and following instructions are adequate, and that the Constitution does not require the specific question the majority mandates.