NCJ Number
86565
Journal
Michigan Law Review Volume: 81 Issue: 1 Dated: (November 1982) Pages: 1-98
Date Published
1982
Length
98 pages
Annotation
After presenting the results of a study of capital jury selection in Florida's Fourth Judicial Circuit, this article analyzes the constitutional issues raised by the data and proposes restructuring the voir dire in capital cases to prevent abuse of the peremptory challenge.
Abstract
A central premise underlying the Supreme Court's decision to uphold capital punishment is that capital juries reflect the standards of decency of the community on the crucial life or death question. There is substantial doubt, however, about the accuracy of this underlying premise. Many defense attorneys believe that prosecutors seek to prevent persons who are generally or even vaguely opposed to the death penalty from serving on capital juries. Although a strong presumption favors the propriety and nonreviewability of the peremptory challenge, a showing of a consistent pattern of behavior with no apparent constitutional justification can overcome this presumption. Where the government's use of the peremptory reflects a systematic pattern inimical to constitutional values, the jury selection process contravenes the due process of law guaranteed the defendant. A study of capital jury selection in Florida's Fourth Judicial Circuit reveals both a systematic use of prosecution peremptory challenges against death-scrupled jurors and their resulting underrepresentation on juries actually selected. A restructured voir dire could cure the constitutional infirmities of unfettered prosecutorial peremptory challenges in capital cases. This reform would eliminate the possibility of constitutionally objectionable use of the peremptory challenge while preserving the state's interest in the nonreviewability of its peremptory challenges and in excluding jurors within the existing standards for challenges for cause. Tabular data and 353 footnotes are provided. (Author summary modified)