Swindler v. Lockhart

Background

A man convicted of killing a police officer was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. His first conviction was overturned because the first trial judge refused to change venue. He was retried in a nearby small county where extensive pretrial publicity existed. During jury selection most potential jurors said they thought he was guilty, and three jurors who expressed such beliefs still served. The trial judge denied multiple requests to move the trial, citing an Arkansas law that forbids a second change of venue.

Reasoning

The central question raised is whether a state rule that bars a second change of venue unconstitutionally prevents a defendant from getting a fair jury when local publicity has likely prejudiced jurors. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, argued that a defendant’s right to a fundamentally fair trial outweighs the State’s interest in trying the case in a chosen county, and that absolute venue rules can violate due process by stopping judges from protecting defendants from prejudicial publicity. Lower federal courts upheld the conviction, relying on state findings that the jurors could be fair and on circuit precedent that news awareness alone is not necessarily prejudicial. The Supreme Court declined to review the case.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the lower-court outcome and the man’s sentence remain in place. The opinion highlights risks for defendants tried where local opinion is strong and state law prevents a second venue change. The issue of whether such state venue rules meet constitutional minimums therefore remains unresolved by the high Court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented from the denial and said he would have granted review and would vacate the death sentence, also reiterating his view that capital punishment is always cruel and unusual.