Davis v. Georgia
Decision Date | 06 December 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 76-5403,76-5403 |
Citation | 429 U.S. 122,50 L.Ed.2d 339,97 S.Ct. 399 |
Parties | Curfew DAVIS v. State of GEORGIA |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The petitioner in this case was convicted of murder and sentenced to death after trial by a jury selected in violation of the standards enunciated in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776(1968), and applied in Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478, 89 S.Ct. 1138, 22 L.Ed.2d 433(1969), andMaxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262, 90 S.Ct. 1578, 26 L.Ed.2d 221(1970).The Witherspoon case held that "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.
The Supreme Court of Georgia found that one prospective juror had been excluded in violation of the Witherspoon standard.The court nevertheless affirmed the conviction and death sentence, reasoning that the erroneous exclusion of one death-scrupled juror did not deny the petitioner a jury representing a cross section of the community since other jurors sharing that attitude were not excused for cause: 236 Ga. 804, 809-810, 225 S.E.2d 241, 244-245.
(1, 2) That, however, is not the test established in Witherspoon, and it is not the test that this Court has applied in subsequent cases where a death penalty was imposed after the improper exclusion of one member of the venire.SeeWigglesworth v. Ohio, 403 U.S. 947, 91 S.Ct. 2284, 29 L.Ed.2d 857(1971), rev'g18 Ohio St.2d 171, 248 N.E.2d 607(1969);Harris v. Texas, 403 U.S. 947, 91 S.Ct. 2291, 29 L.Ed.2d 859(1971), rev'g457 S.W.2d 903(Ct.Crim.App.Tex.1970);Adams v. Washington, 403 U.S. 947, 91 S.Ct. 2273, 29 L.Ed.2d 855(1971), rev'g76 Wash.2d 650, 458 P.2d 558(1969).Unless a venireman is "irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings,"391 U.S. at 522 n. 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1777, he cannot be excluded; if a venireman is improperly excluded even though not so committed, any subsequently imposed death penalty cannot stand.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
As is clear from the most cursory reading, Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776(1968), does not inexorably lead to the result this Court now reaches.Indeed, much of the language in that opinion would support the reasoning, and the result, reached by the Supreme Court of Georgia.The extension of Witherspoon to cover the case where a sole venireman is excluded in violation of its test deserves plenary...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Wolfe v. Clarke
...adjudicator goes to the very integrity of the legal system” harmless-error analysis cannot apply); see Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 97 S.Ct. 399, 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976) (per curiam) (“[u]nless a venireman is ‘irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty o......
-
Montiel v. Chappell
...to question or challenge Binns about her feelings of PCP use was ineffective assistance, which was prejudicial per se. See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 (1976) (establishing a "per se rule" requiring vacating a death sentence where a single juror with conscientious scruples against th......
-
Briley v. Bass
...510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), reh. denied, 393 U.S. 898, 89 S.Ct. 67, 21 L.Ed.2d 186 (1969), and Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 97 S.Ct. 399, 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976). Claim (5) is likewise without merit. Petitioner points to no authority, and the Court is unaware of any, which s......
-
Keeten v. Garrison
...position of opposition to the death penalty described in Witherspoon requires reversal of a death sentence. Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 97 S.Ct. 399, 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976). The trial judge asked Ms. Melton the following questions and, based on her answers, excused her for Q by the Court......
-
Institutionalizing the Culture of Control
...and Randol 337 Table A1. (continued)Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 2951 (2011)Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986)Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 (1976)Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 (1992)Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005)Delo v. Lashley, 507 U.S. 272 (1993)Dobbert v. Florida, 4......
-
Chapter 3 The Law and Practice of Voir Dire of Capital Jurors: Ensuring Jurors Are Merciful
...(1980).[12] 469 U.S. 412 (1985).[13] Id. at 424.[14] Id. at 424.[15] See, e.g., Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 668; Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 (1976).[16] 504 U.S. 719, 729 (1992).[17] Id. at 729. "We deal here with petitioner's ability to exercise intelligently his complementa......
-
Chapter 13 Jury De-selection
...interest in a joint trial, argues strongly in favor of permitting 'death qualification' of the jury.").[9] . Davis v. Georgia 429 U.S. 122 (1976).[10] . Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985).[11] . Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (1988).[12] . Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 665 (1987) (......