NCJ Number
88007
Journal
Creighton Law Review Volume: 15 Issue: 3 Dated: (1981-1982) Pages: 595-617
Date Published
1982
Length
23 pages
Annotation
The use of an alternate juror system or a two-jury system in capital cases would reconcile a capital defendant's rights to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community with the State's legitimate interest in impanelling jurors capable of imposing the death penalty.
Abstract
In Witherspoon v. Illinois, the Supreme Court recognized that in capital cases the States have a legitimate interest in seating a jury whose members are capable of imposing a death sentence. This recognition seemingly sanctioned the traditional practice of excluding jurors who would not vote in favor of capital punishment. However, the Court later held in Taylor v. Louisiana and Duren v. Missouri that the unjustified systematic exclusion of a distinct group of persons deprived defendants of their rights to have guilt tried by a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. Under these decision, a State may no longer eliminate opponents of capital punishment from the guilt phase of a capital trial unless they clearly state that even if they are absolved of responsibility for imposing a death sentence they could not be impartial on the issue of guilt. If a State adopts an alternate juror system, alternate jurors who are impartial on the death issue would not take part in the deliberations on the question of guilt. They would replace those jury members who must be excluded from the sentence determination because of their views regarding capital punishment. In a two-jury system, the first jury would consist entirely of 'nondeath qualified' jurors who would determine guilt. The second jury would deliberate about sentencing after the first jury returned a guilty verdict. Footnotes are included.