|
|
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968)
Witherspoon v. Illinois No. 1015 Argued April 24, 1968 Decided June 3, 1968 391 U.S. 510
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
Syllabus
Petitioner was adjudged guilty of murder and the jury fixed his penalty at death. An Illinois statute provided for challenges for cause in murder trials "of any juror who shall, on being examined, state that he has conscientious scruples against capital punishment, or that he is opposed to the same." At petitioner’s trial, the prosecution, under that statute, eliminated nearly half the venire of prospective jurors by challenging all who expressed qualms about the death penalty. Most of the veniremen thus challenged for cause were excluded with no effort to find out whether their scruples would invariably compel them to vote against capital punishment. The Illinois Supreme Court denied post-conviction relief.
Held:
1. Neither on the basis of the record in this case nor as a matter of judicial notice of presently available information can it be concluded that the exclusion of jurors opposed to capital punishment results in an unrepresentative jury on the issue of guilt or substantially increases the risk of conviction. Pp. 516-518.
2. Although it has not been shown that this jury was biased with respect to guilt, it is self-evident that, in its distinct role as arbiter of the punishment to be imposed, this jury fell woefully short of that impartiality to which a defendant is entitled under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. P. 518.
3. A man who opposes the death penalty, no less than one who favors it, can make the discretionary choice of punishment entrusted to him by the State, and can thus obey the oath he takes as a juror; but in a nation where so many have come to oppose capital punishment, a jury from which all such people have been excluded cannot perform the task demanded of it -- that of expressing the conscience of the community on the ultimate question of life or death. P. 519.
4. Just as a State may not entrust the determination of whether a man is innocent or guilty to a tribunal organized to convict, so it may not entrust the determination of whether a man should live or die to a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death, and no sentence of death can be carried out, regardless of when it was imposed, if the voir dire testimony indicates that the jury that imposed or recommended that sentence was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to capital punishment or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction. Pp. 521-523.
36 Ill.2d 471, 224 N.E.2d 259, reversed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968) in 391 U.S. 510 391 U.S. 511–391 U.S. 512. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PJH5ZKMV3S9C3MY.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968), in 391 U.S. 510, pp. 391 U.S. 511–391 U.S. 512. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PJH5ZKMV3S9C3MY.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968). cited in 1968, 391 U.S. 510, pp.391 U.S. 511–391 U.S. 512. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PJH5ZKMV3S9C3MY.
|