Greene v. Georgia
| Decision Date | 16 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | 965369 |
| Parties | Daniel GREENE v. GEORGIA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petitioner was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault by a jury in Taylor County, Georgia and sentenced to death. At trial, over petitioner's objection, the court excused for cause five jurors who expressed reservations about the death penalty. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, citing Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), as ''controlling authority'' for a rule that appellate courts must defer to trial courts' findings concerning juror bias. Greene v. State, 266 Ga. 439, 440-442, 469 S.E.2d 129, 134-135 (1996).
Wainwright v. Witt, supra, delineated the standard under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments for determining when a juror may be excused for cause because of his views on the death penalty: whether these views would '' 'prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.' '' Id., at 424, 105 S.Ct., at 852. Addressing petitioner's federal constitutional challenge to the juror disqualifications in this case, the Georgia Supreme Court correctly recognized that Witt is, ''the controlling authority as to the death qualification of prospective jurors . . . . '' Greene, 266 Ga., at 440, 469 S.E.2d, at 134. *
Witt also held that, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), federal courts must accord a presumption of correctness to state courts' findings of juror bias. Wainwright, supra, at 426-430, 105 S.Ct., at 853-855. The Supreme Court of Georgia said that Witt was also ''controlling authority'' on this point, and it therefore ruled that ' Greene, supra, at 441, 469 S.E.2d 129.
Witt is not ''controlling authority'' as to the standard of review to be applied by state appellate courts reviewing trial courts' rulings on jury selection. Witt was a case arising on federal habeas, where deference to state court findings is mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). But this statute does not govern the standard of review of trial court findings by the Supreme Court of Georgia. There is no indication in that court's opinion that it viewed Witt as merely persuasive authority, or that the court intended to borrow or adopt the Witt standard of review for its own purposes. It believed itself bound by Witt's standard of review of trial court findings on jury-selection questions, and in so doing it was mistaken.
In a similar case involving a state court's mistaken view that the First Amendment required it to reach a particular result, we said ''[w]e conclude that although the State of Ohio may as a matter of its own law privilege the press in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Miles
...he argues that such deference is inappropriate on direct appeal in light of the high court's holding in Greene v. Georgia (1996) 519 U.S. 145, 146–147, 117 S.Ct. 578, 136 L.Ed.2d 507. But Greene held that the Supreme Court of Georgia was mistaken when it believed itself bound by Witt ’s sta......
-
People v. Carter
...constitutional issues that are more stringent than those adopted by federal courts. See, e.g. , Greene v. Georgia , 519 U.S. 145, 117 S.Ct. 578, 136 L.Ed.2d 507 (1996) (per curiam).1 I take the majority's point that neither the United States Supreme Court nor our supreme court has included ......
-
People v. Farnam
...he was in the Robbery/Homicide Special Division of the Los Angeles Police Department. 6. Defendant cites Greene v. Georgia (1996) 519 U.S. 145, 117 S.Ct. 578, 136 L.Ed.2d 507 for the proposition that a state appellate court need not give deference to a trial court's findings relating to jur......
-
Bishop v. State
...P.J., who concurs specially. Appendix. Greene v. State, 266 Ga. 439, 469 S.E.2d 129 (1996), rev'd on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 578, 136 L.Ed.2d 507 (1996); Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292, 455 S.E.2d 61 (1995); Meders v. State, 261 Ga. 806, 411 S.E.2d 491 (1992); Kinsman v. State......
-
Institutionalizing the Culture of Control
...v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (1987)Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152 (1996)Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 (1979)Greene v. Georgia, 519 U.S. 145 (1996)Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 (1995)Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985)Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390......
-
Carruthers v. State: Thou Shalt Not Make Direct Religious References in Closing Argument - Marcus S.henson
...of the trial. Id. (citing Todd v. State, 261 Ga. at 768, 410 S.E.2d at 728). 51. 266 Ga. 439, 469 S.E.2d 129, rev'd on other grounds, 519 U.S. 145 (1996). 52. Id. at 450, 469 S.E.2d at 141. 53. Id., 469 S.E.2d at 140. 54. Id. at 449-50, 469 S.E.2d at 140-41. 55. Id., 469 S.E.2d at 141. 56. ......
-
Outrageous Opponents: How to Stop Them in Closing Argument
...226 Ga. App. 232, 486 S.E.2d 61 (1997); See Greene v. State, 266 Ga. 439, 469 S.E.2d 129 (1996), rev'd on other grounds, 519 U's. 145, 117 S.Ct. 578 13. See, e.g., Greene, 266 Ga. at 449-50, 569 S.E.2d at 140-41. 14. Carruthers v. State, 272 Ga. 306, 528 S.E.2d 217 (2000) (reversing death s......