Witherspoon v. Illinois

Supreme Court of the United States · 1968 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawCapital punishmentJury selectionDue processSixth Amendmentdeath-qualified jurycapital punishmentvoir dire

Facts

At petitioner's 1960 Illinois murder trial, state law allowed exclusion for cause of any juror who said he had conscientious scruples against capital punishment or was opposed to it. During voir dire, the prosecution used that authority to exclude 47 veniremen based on their attitudes toward the death penalty, though only 5 explicitly said they would never vote to impose it. Others were excused merely for saying they did not believe in the death penalty or had conscientious or religious scruples against it, without determining whether they could still consider a death verdict. The resulting jury convicted petitioner and fixed punishment at death.

Issue

May a State execute a defendant when the jury that imposed the death sentence was selected by excluding for cause veniremen simply because they expressed general objections to capital punishment or conscientious or religious scruples against it? More narrowly, does the Constitution permit such exclusions when the jury has discretion to choose between life imprisonment and death?

Rule

A sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction. A State may exclude for cause only those veniremen who make unmistakably clear that they would automatically vote against capital punishment regardless of the evidence, or that their attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to guilt.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a capital murder trial in Cleveland, the prosecutor asks each prospective juror only whether the juror is "opposed to the death penalty." Everyone who answers yes is excused for cause, without any follow-up about whether the juror could still consider death under the court's instructions. The seated jury convicts Devin Cross and imposes death.

If Devin challenges only the death sentence, how should a reviewing court rule?

Explanation. A death sentence may not be carried out if the jury imposing it was selected by excluding venire members for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty. The majority drew a line between general scruples and a clear statement that the juror would automatically vote against death regardless of the evidence. The Court did not adopt a per se rule invalidating the conviction on guilt, but it did hold the death sentence invalid.