High Court Eases Jury Exclusions : Judge Can Dismiss Death Penalty foes to Avoid ‘Impaired’Trial

The Supreme Court today made it easier to exclude from capital punishment cases prospective jurors with reservations about the death penalty.

By a 7-2 vote, the court reinstated the death sentence of convicted Florida child killer Johnny Paul Witt. The court overturned a federal appeals court decision that threw out Witt’s sentence based on the disqualification of one potential juror from his trial.

Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the court, said it is not necessary to show with “unmistakeable clarity” that a juror has “automatic” opposition to the death penalty in order to exclude him or her from a panel.

Instead, Rehnquist said, a judge may bar the prospective juror based on his decision that the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.”

Broad Discretion

He said that a trial judge should have broad discretion in determining who sits in capital punishment trials because the judge is able to observe the juror firsthand and is in position to analyze whether jurors are trying to hide their true feelings.

Witt was convicted for the Oct. 28, 1973, murder of 11-year-old Jonathon Kushner. Prosecutors said Witt and his friend, Gary Tillman, killed the youngster and then sexually abused and mutilated his corpse.

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1983 threw out Witt’s death sentence--but not his conviction--based on the disqualification of a prospective juror identified only as “Ms. Colby.”

A prosecutor asked Colby if her views about capital punishment would “interfere with you sitting as juror in this case?”

She replied, “I’m afraid it would.”

The prosecutor continued, “Would it interfere with judging the guilt or innocence of the defendant in this case?”

“I think so,” she answered.

Too Ambiguous

The appeals court said the word “interfere” is too ambiguous to exclude her from the trial.

But the Supreme Court today said the appeals court focused unduly on the lack of clarity in Colby’s answers.

“Despite this lack of clarity in the printed record,” Rehnquist said, “there will be situations where the trial judge is left with a definite impression that a prospective juror would be unable to faithfully and impartially apply the law.”

Justices William J. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall dissented.