Witherspoon v. Illinois
Witherspoon v. Illinois is a pivotal Supreme Court case from 1968 that addressed the intersection of jury selection and capital punishment in the context of the Sixth Amendment. The case arose when William Witherspoon's murder trial in Illinois led to the exclusion of jurors who expressed any reservations about imposing the death penalty, a practice that resulted in nearly half of potential jurors being eliminated. Witherspoon appealed, arguing that this exclusion compromised his right to an impartial jury, as mandated by the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion authored by Justice Potter Stewart, agreed that a jury lacking individuals who were uncertain about capital punishment could not adequately represent the community or ensure fair deliberation on sentencing. The Court ruled that while jurors with a firm opposition to the death penalty could be excluded, those with reservations could not be, thus emphasizing the importance of a jury that reflects diverse community views. This decision underscored the constitutional implications of jury selection processes in capital cases, while simultaneously affirming states' rights to determine their death penalty laws within constitutional limits. Overall, Witherspoon v. Illinois remains a significant examination of juror impartiality and the complexities surrounding capital punishment in the legal system.
On this Page
Witherspoon v. Illinois
The Case: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on juries in capital punishment cases
Date: Decided on June 3, 1968
Significance: In this groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court decided that prospective jurors with reservations about the death penalty could not be excluded from service in criminal proceedings.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees accused citizens the right to trial by an impartial jury of peers. This deceptively simple guarantee has come under fire in cases too numerous to mention. During the 1960’s, many noteworthy cases advanced to the Supreme Court regarding the composition and unanimity of the jury in criminal cases. In 1968, the Witherspoon case compounded the jury-selection question with the issue of capital punishment.
Using an Illinois statute, the prosecution at William Witherspoon’s murder trial in Cook County, Illinois, eliminated almost half of the potential jurors by challenging those who had reservations about their ability to impose a death sentence. This exclusion occurred without any determination of the level of reservation; that is, the potential jurors were excluded for any degree of uncertainty about imposition of a death sentence. The defendant, Witherspoon, appealed his case on the grounds that such a broad exclusion of jurors prevented him from being tried by an impartial jury as guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment. Witherspoon claimed that a jury absent of those opposed or at least uncertain about capital punishment would under no circumstances be impartial or representative of the community.
The Supreme Court agreed in a majority opinion written by Justice Potter Stewart. Witherspoon’s death sentence was voided by the Court; however, his conviction was not overturned. The Court agreed with the defendant that a jury devoid of objectors to capital punishment was sure to be “woefully short” of the impartiality guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and extended to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. In the majority opinion, the Court stated that those prospective jurors who expressed a total disinclination toward ever imposing the death penalty could be excluded; however, persons who merely had reservations in the matter could not be excluded for their reservations alone.
The Court went on to state that juries must attempt to mirror the feelings of the community. In any given community there will be a certain number of people who are unsure of their feelings about capital punishment. This point of view should not be avoided in jury selection, the Court ruled, as inclusion of such undecided jurors will ensure neutrality on the sentencing issue and will allow the jury more adequately to reflect the conscience of the community.
While ruling that a jury totally committed to the imposition of the death penalty cannot be selected deliberately, as this would deprive a defendant of life without due process of law, the Court did not issue a constitutional rule that would have required the reversal of every jury selected under the Illinois statute. The Court did not state that a jury composed of persons in favor of capital punishment would be predisposed to convict, only that such a jury would be predisposed in the sentencing element of a trial.
The Witherspoon decision was an early test of the Supreme Court’s position on capital punishment as well as on jury composition and selection. The Court indicated its willingness to uphold criminal convictions while examining the sentencing procedures being used in the states. At no point in its opinion did the Court express disfavor for the death penalty; rather, the opinion targeted only the constitutional implications of the jury-selection process. In other words, the Witherspoon decision indicated that within constitutional bounds, communities would be left to choose whether or not to impose the death penalty.
Bibliography
Bohm, Robert M. Deathquest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing, 2003.
Carter, Linda E., and Ellen Krietzberg. Understanding Capital Punishment Law. Newark, N.J.: LexisNexis, 2004.
Latzer, Barry, ed. Death Penalty Cases: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Capital Punishment. 2d ed. Burlington, Mass.: Butterworth Heinemann, 2002.
Sarat, Austin. When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001.