Maxwell v. Bishop
Decision Date | 01 June 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 13,13 |
Citation | 90 S.Ct. 1578,26 L.Ed.2d 221,398 U.S. 262 |
Parties | William L. MAXWELL, Petitioner, v. O. E. BISHOP, Superintendent, Arkansas State Penitentiary. Re |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Anthony G. Amsterdam, Stanford, Cal., for petitioner.
Don Langston, Little Rock, Ark., for respondent.
Albert W. Harris, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for the State of California, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
In 1962 the petitioner was found guilty of rape by an Arkansas jury without a verdict of life imprisonment, and the trial court imposed a sentence of death. 1 The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. 236 Ark. 694, 370 S.W.2d 113. The petitioner then sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, claiming, among other things, that his conviction and punishment were unconstitutional in that (1) the jury had determined the two issues of guilt or innocence and of a life or death sentence in a single proceeding, thereby precluding him from presenting evidence pertinent to the question of penalty without subjecting himself to self-incrimination on the issue of guilt; and (2) the jury had been given no standards or directions of any kind to guide it is deciding whether to impose a sentence of life imprisonment or death. The District Court denied the writ, 257 F.Supp. 710, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, 398 F.2d 138. We granted certiorari limited to the two questions noted above. 393 U.S. 997, 89 S.Ct. 488, 21 L.Ed.2d 462.
The petitioner's trial took place long before this Court's decision in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776. The trial transcript makes evident that several prospective jurors were removed from the panel upon grounds held impermissible in the Witherspoon case. One prospective juror, for example, was successfully challenged for cause solely on the basis of the following exchange:
(Emphasis supplied.)
Another venireman was removed from the jury panel on the basis of the following question and answer:
Still another member of the panel was dismissed after the following colloquy:
(Emphasis supplied.)2
As was made clear in Witherspoon, '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.' 391 U.S., at 522, 88 S.Ct. at 1777. We reaffirmed that doctrine in Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478, 89 S.Ct. 1138, 22 L.Ed.2d 433. As we there observed, it cannot be supposed that once such people take their oaths as jurors they will be unable 'to follow conscientiously the instructions of a trial judge and to consider fairly the imposition of the death sentence in a particular case.' 394 U.S., at 484, 89 S.Ct. at 1142. 'Unless a venireman states unambiguously that he would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment no matter what the trial might reveal, it simply cannot be assumed that that is his position.' Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. at 516 n. 9, 88 S.Ct. at 1774 n. 9.
Id., at 522 n. 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1777 n. 21.
It appears, therefore, that the sentence of death imposed upon the petitioner cannot constitutionally stand under Witherspoon v. Illinois. As in Boulden v. Holman, however, we do not finally decide that question here. The situation in this case closely resembles that presented in Boulden, in that the petitioner's trial took place before the Witherspoon decision, and the Witherspoon issue was not raised in the District Court, in the Court of Appeals, or in the petition for certiorari filed in this Court. The reasons that persuaded us to remand the Boulden case to the District Court apply with equal force here: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hovey v. Superior Court
...1773, fn. 9; Boulden v. Holman (1969) 394 U.S. 478, 483-484, 89 S.Ct. 1138, 1141-1142, 22 L.Ed.2d 433; Maxwell v. Bishop (1970) 398 U.S. 262, 265, 90 S.Ct. 1578, 1580, 26 L.Ed.2d 221.)19 On appeal, Witherspoon cited to the Supreme Court a survey by W. C. Wilson, an unpublished survey by Fay......
-
State v. Sanders
...issue, violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.' The United States Supreme Court has now spoken in Maxwell. (June 1, 1970) 398 U.S. 262, 90 S.Ct. 1578, 26 L.Ed.2d 221. Without deciding the issues involved, the case was remanded to Federal District Court in Arkansas for a hearing on the......
-
Roberts v. Louisiana 30 31, 1976
...U.S. 183, 91 S.Ct. 1454, 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971), after having heard the same issues argued twice before in Maxwell v. Bishop, see 398 U.S. 262, 90 S.Ct. 1578, 26 L.Ed.2d 221 (1970), we specifically rejected the claims that a defendant's "constitutional rights were infringed by permitting the......
-
People v. Lanphear
...186, 455 P.2d 122; In re Hillery (1969) 71 Cal.2d 857, 863, 79 Cal.Rptr. 733, 457 P.2d 565; see also Maxwell v. Bishop (1970) 398 U.S. 262, 264-265, 90 S.Ct. 1578, 1580, 26 L.Ed.2d 221; People v. Stanworth (1969) 71 Cal.2d 820, 835-838, 80 Cal.Rptr. 49, 457 P.2d 889; In re Hill (1969) 71 Ca......
-
Institutionalizing the Culture of Control
...v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988)Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 2788 (2010)Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422 (1983)Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 (1970)Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988)McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991)McGautha v. Califor......
-
David Baldus and the Legacy of McCleskey v. Kemp
...Standing by themselves, they 1. Maxwell v. Bishop, 257 F. Supp. 710 (E.D. Ark. 1966), aff’d , 398 F.2d 138 (8th Cir. 1968), vacated , 398 U.S. 262 (1970). 2. Marvin E. Wolfgang & Marc Riedel, Race, Judicial Discretion, and the Death Penalty , 407 AM. ACAD. POL. & SOC. SCI. 119, 127 (1973). ......
-
The Supreme Court of the United States, 1969-1970
...117.) Related cases decided this term. The decision in Witherspoon v. Illinois (391 U.S. 510, 1968) was reaffirmed in Maxwell v. Bishop (398 U.S. 262; 90 S. 1578) by noting that a jury from which persons were excluded who had general objections to the death penalty cannot impose a death sen......