Witherspoon standard in Tennessee

1989In State v. Harrington, 627 S.W.2d 345 (Tenn.1981) we reversed the sentence of death and remanded for a new sentencing hearing upon our finding that the trial judge had erroenously excluded a single juror for cause in violation of the Witherspoon standard.

1989In State v. Harrington, 627 S.W.2d 345 (Tenn.1981) we reversed the sentence of death and remanded for a new sentencing hearing upon our finding that the trial judge had erroenously excluded a single juror for cause in violation of the Witherspoon standard.

1998The Witherspoon standard was clarified in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 , 105 S.Ct. at 852 : That standard is whether the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” We note that, in addition to dispensing with Witherspoon’s reference to “automatic” decision making, this standard likewise does not require that a juror’s bias be proved with “unmistakable clarity.” The specific question challenged by the appellant was the prosecutor’s inquiry: 8 W e note tha t the appe llant failed to pre s

1998The Witherspoon standard was clarified in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 , 105 S.Ct. at 852 : That standard is whether the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” We note that, in addition to dispensing with Witherspoon’s reference to “automatic” decision making, this standard likewise does not require that a juror’s bias be proved with “unmistakable clarity.” The specific question challenged by the appellant was the prosecutor’s inquiry: 8 W e note tha t the appe llant failed to pre s

1981In the recent case of Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980), the Supreme Court held violative of the Witherspoon standard a Texas statute which required the disqualification of any juror in a capital case who did not state under oath "that the mandatory penalty of death or life imprisonment will not affect his deliberations on any issue of fact." Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.31 (b).

1981In the recent case of Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980), the Supreme Court held violative of the Witherspoon standard a Texas statute which required the disqualification of any juror in a capital case who did not state under oath "that the mandatory penalty of death or life imprisonment will not affect his deliberations on any issue of fact." Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.31 (b).

1984Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), and its progeny 2 establish the general *940 proposition “that a juror may not be challenged for cause based on his views about capital punishment unless those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980).

1984Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), and its progeny 2 establish the general *940 proposition “that a juror may not be challenged for cause based on his views about capital punishment unless those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980).

1984He argues that in capital cases individual voir dire is the preferred method and also that group voir dire on the Witherspoon issue makes a jury prone to give the death penalty as found in Hovey v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 28 Cal.3d 1 , 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 (1980).

1984He argues that in capital cases individual voir dire is the preferred method and also that group voir dire on the Witherspoon issue makes a jury prone to give the death penalty as found in Hovey v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 28 Cal.3d 1 , 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 (1980).

1981See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976); Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 , 90 S.Ct. 578 , 26 L.Ed.2d 221 (1970); Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969).

1981See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976); Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 , 90 S.Ct. 578 , 26 L.Ed.2d 221 (1970); Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969).

1981See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976); Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 , 90 S.Ct. 578 , 26 L.Ed.2d 221 (1970); Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969).

1981See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976); Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 , 90 S.Ct. 578 , 26 L.Ed.2d 221 (1970); Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969).

1971In Cardinale v. Henderson, 316 F.Supp. 481 (E.D.La.1970) after finding a Witherspoon violation, the court set aside the death penalty and imposed in its place a sentence of life imprisonment.

1971In Cardinale v. Henderson, 316 F.Supp. 481 (E.D.La.1970) after finding a Witherspoon violation, the court set aside the death penalty and imposed in its place a sentence of life imprisonment.

1971(The trial jury could choose only death or life imprisonment upon a finding of guilt.) The court said, “the effect of the breach of Witherspoon is to set aside the death penalty and to impose in its place the other sentence which the jury could have imposed following a finding of guilt.” However, in another Louisiana case, Ward v. Henderson, 317 F.Supp. 344 (W.D.La.1970), the court there found a violation of Witherspoon but noted that the U. S. Supreme Court did not specify how such cases would be disposed of.

1971(The trial jury could choose only death or life imprisonment upon a finding of guilt.) The court said, “the effect of the breach of Witherspoon is to set aside the death penalty and to impose in its place the other sentence which the jury could have imposed following a finding of guilt.” However, in another Louisiana case, Ward v. Henderson, 317 F.Supp. 344 (W.D.La.1970), the court there found a violation of Witherspoon but noted that the U. S. Supreme Court did not specify how such cases would be disposed of.

1971In Zimmer v. State, 206 Kan. 304 , 477 P.2d 971 (1970) the trial court, upon finding a Witherspoon violation upon a post-conviction proceeding, ordered the death sentence set aside and resentenced him to life imprisonment.

1971In Zimmer v. State, 206 Kan. 304 , 477 P.2d 971 (1970) the trial court, upon finding a Witherspoon violation upon a post-conviction proceeding, ordered the death sentence set aside and resentenced him to life imprisonment.

1971In Woodards v. Cardwell, 430 F.2d 978 (6th Cir.1970), it was held that a Witherspoon violation did not invalidate the guilty verdict and that only the death sentence imposed by the improperly selected jury could not be executed.

1971In Woodards v. Cardwell, 430 F.2d 978 (6th Cir.1970), it was held that a Witherspoon violation did not invalidate the guilty verdict and that only the death sentence imposed by the improperly selected jury could not be executed.