Davis v. Georgia, No. 76-5403
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; REHNQUIST |
| Citation | 429 U.S. 122,50 L.Ed.2d 339,97 S.Ct. 399 |
| Parties | Curfew DAVIS v. State of GEORGIA |
| Docket Number | No. 76-5403 |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1976 |
v.
State of GEORGIA.
PER CURIAM.
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), and Maxwell 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: "The rationale of Witherspoon and its progeny is not violated where merely one of a qualified class or group is excluded where it is shown, as here, that others of such group were qualified to serve. This record is completely void of any e-
Page 123
vidence of a systematic and intentional exclusion of a qualified group of jurors so as to deny the appellant a jury of veniremen representing a cross section of the community." 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. See Wigglesworth v. Ohio, 403 U.S. 947, 91 S.Ct. 2284, 29 L.Ed.2d 857 (1971), rev'g 18 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'g 457 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'g 76 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolfe v. Clarke, Civil Action No. 2:05cv432.
...of the 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 pe......
-
Montiel v. Chappell, Case No. 1:96-cv-05412-LJO-SAB
...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 the d......
-
State v. Tart
...juror Vanessa Rice violated his right to an impartial jury, mandating reversal of his death sentence. Tart relies on Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 97 S.Ct. 399, 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976) (per curiam), and Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 107 S.Ct. 2045, 95 L.Ed.2d 622 (1987). The defendant ......
-
Briley v. Bass, Civ. A. No. 83-0289-R.
...391 U.S. 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 Claim (5) is likewise without merit. Petitioner points to no authority, and the Court is unaware of any, which ......
-
Pope v. State, No. 42863
...alternate juror. Devier v. State, supra, 253 Ga. 604(3), 323 S.E.2d 150. But it follows from the principal announced in Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 97 S.Ct. 399, 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976), and applied by this court in Blankenship v. State, 247 Ga. 590, 277 S.E.2d 505 (1981), that death-qual......
-
People v. Heard, No. S035769.
...penalty judgment. (See Gray v. Mississippi (1987) 481 U.S. 648, 664-666, 668, 107 S.Ct. 2045, 95 L.Ed.2d 622; Davis v. Georgia (1976) 429 U.S. 122, 123, 97 S.Ct. 399, 50 L.Ed.2d 339.) Accordingly, under compulsion of these applicable federal decisions, we shall reverse the judgment as to th......
-
State v. Pinch, No. 43A81
...law. If only one juror is excused for cause, in violation of Witherspoon limitations, a sentence of death cannot stand. Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 97 S.Ct. 399, 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976) (per curiam). The Davis Court noted, 429 U.S. at 123, 97 S.Ct. at Unless a venireman is 'irrevocably co......
-
People v. Riccardi, No. S056842.
...Gray v. Mississippi (1987) 481 U.S. 648, 107 S.Ct. 2045, 95 L.Ed.2d 622( Gray ) was decided 11 years after Davis v. Georgia (1976) 429 U.S. 122, 97 S.Ct. 399, 50 L.Ed.2d 339, which summarily reversed a death sentence where the trial court had erroneously excluded a prospective juror for cau......
-
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......