NCJ Number
108456
Journal
Boston University Law Review Volume: 66 Issue: 2 Dated: (March 1986) Pages: 311-343
Date Published
1986
Length
33 pages
Annotation
This comment examines the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wainwright v. Witt (1985) in the context of previous relevant Supreme Court decisions (Witherspoon v. Illinois and Adams v. Texas).
Abstract
The courts have interpreted 'Witherspoon' as standing for the proposition that only those prospective jurors who make it 'unmistakably clear' that they would never consider imposing the death penalty or who could not impartially judge guilt are excludable. This principle was confirmed n 'Adams.' 'Witt,' however, vests trial judges with almost complete discretion in excluding jurors for death penalty bias and makes such exclusions virtually unreviewable in habeas proceedings. A defendant may have no recourse from an arbitrary judicial decision which violates the defendant's constitutional right to an impartial jury and which determines whether the defendant lives or dies. Given the Supreme Court's decision in 'Witt,' States should provide additional safeguards for defendants' rights. At a minimum, States should create a standard of exclusion which requires bias to be unmistakably clear and mandate that trial judges made a written finding of bias. States should also consider bifurcating capital procedures to minimize any risk to accurate guilt adjudication casued by 'Witt' exclusion. 228 footnotes.