Baldonado v. California
Headline: Grants review to decide whether death-row defendants got unfair trials due to prosecutors’ conduct, publicity, and whether jurors who said they believed the defendant were improperly left on capital juries.
Holding: The Court granted leave to proceed without paying fees and limited its review to two Fourteenth Amendment questions about prosecutorial conduct, publicity, and juror prejudice, while continuing stays of execution pending issuance of mandates.
- Keeps executions paused while the Supreme Court considers due-process questions.
- Focuses review on prosecutors’ conduct, publicity, and jurors’ preexisting opinions.
- Transfers the California death-penalty cases to the Supreme Court appellate docket.
Summary
Background
A group of criminal cases from California involve people sentenced to death who asked permission to proceed without paying court fees. They asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether their trial rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated because of the district attorney’s conduct, publicity about the cases, and other circumstances. The petitions also raise whether three jurors who had entered the jury box with fixed opinions about the defendant’s guilt were improperly allowed to stay and decide the capital case.
Reasoning
The Court granted the motions to proceed without fees and agreed to review the cases, but limited its review to two specific questions described in the petitions. The first question asks whether the combination of the prosecutor’s conduct, resulting publicity, and trial circumstances deprived the defendants of a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment. The second asks whether allowing three jurors who stated fixed beliefs about guilt to remain after voir dire (the jury selection questioning) violated the defendant’s right to a fair jury trial in a capital case. The cases were transferred to the Court’s appellate docket for that limited review.
Real world impact
The Court continued earlier stays of execution ordered by Justice Douglas and kept those stays in place while the Court issues its mandates. The action is a limited grant of review, not a final decision on the merits; the Justices will decide the two due-process questions on appeal. The published record lists the related California reports and case entries that led to this review.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?