morgan
illinois
argued
january
decided
june
trial
capital
offense
illinois
conducted
two
phases
jury
determining
defendant
guilt
whether
death
penalty
imposed
accordance
state
law
trial
conducted
voir
dire
select
jury
petitioner
morgan
capital
murder
trial
state
requested
pursuant
witherspoon
illinois
ask
jurors
whether
automatically
vote
death
penalty
matter
facts
case
however
refused
morgan
request
ask
jurors
automatically
vote
impose
death
penalty
regardless
facts
stating
asked
substantially
question
fact
every
empaneled
juror
asked
generally
whether
fair
impartial
asked
whether
follow
instructions
law
morgan
convicted
sentenced
death
state
affirmed
ruling
trial
required
include
voir
dire
life
qualifying
question
upon
request
held
trial
refusal
inquire
whether
potential
jurors
automatically
impose
death
penalty
upon
convicting
morgan
inconsistent
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
pp
due
process
demands
jury
provided
capital
defendant
sentencing
phase
must
stand
impartial
indifferent
extent
commanded
sixth
amendment
see
pp
based
impartiality
requirement
capital
defendant
may
challenge
cause
prospective
juror
automatically
vote
death
penalty
juror
fail
good
faith
consider
evidence
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
instructions
require
wainwright
witt
pp
voir
dire
trial
must
defendant
request
inquire
prospective
jurors
views
capital
punishment
part
guarantee
defendant
right
impartial
jury
adequate
voir
dire
identify
unqualified
jurors
morgan
exercise
intelligently
challenge
cause
prospective
jurors
unwaveringly
impose
death
finding
guilt
unless
given
opportunity
identify
persons
questioning
voir
dire
views
death
penalty
cf
lockhart
mccree
absent
opportunity
right
tried
always
impose
death
rendered
nugatory
meaningless
state
right
absence
questioning
strike
never
pp
trial
voir
dire
insufficient
satisfy
morgan
right
make
inquiry
state
request
questioning
witherspoon
witt
belies
argument
general
fairness
follow
law
questions
asked
trial
enough
detect
venire
automatically
impose
death
jurors
truth
candor
respond
affirmatively
types
questions
personally
confident
dogmatic
views
fair
impartial
leaving
specific
concern
unprobed
importantly
belief
death
imposed
ipso
facto
upon
conviction
reflects
directly
individual
inability
follow
law
pp
juror
mitigating
evidence
irrelevant
plainly
saying
evidence
worth
consideration
view
long
rejected
finds
basis
illinois
statutory
decisional
law
instruction
accords
state
death
penalty
statute
requires
jury
instructed
consider
relevant
aggravating
mitigating
factors
lists
certain
relevant
mitigating
factors
directs
jury
consider
whether
mitigating
factors
sufficient
preclude
death
penalty
imposition
since
statute
plainly
indicates
lesser
sentence
available
every
case
mitigating
evidence
exists
juror
invariably
impose
death
penalty
give
mitigating
evidence
consideration
statute
contemplates
pp
white
delivered
opinion
blackmun
stevens
kennedy
souter
joined
scalia
filed
dissenting
opinion
rehnquist
thomas
joined
allen
andrews
iii
argued
cause
filed
briefs
petitioner
kenneth
gillis
argued
cause
respondent
brief
roland
burris
attorney
general
illinois
terence
madsen
assistant
attorney
general
jack
randall
roberts
sally
dilgart
william
carroll
marie
quinlivan
czech
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
american
civil
liberties
union
et
al
robert
graham
laura
kaster
harvey
grossman
john
powell
steven
shapiro
diann
national
association
criminal
defense
lawyers
andrea
lyon
justice
white
delivered
opinion
decide
whether
voir
dire
capital
offense
state
trial
may
consistent
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
refuse
inquiry
whether
potential
juror
automatically
impose
death
penalty
upon
conviction
defendant
trial
capital
offense
illinois
conducted
two
phases
defendant
must
first
convicted
murder
defined
ch
supp
illinois
law
uses
jury
decided
guilt
determine
whether
death
penalty
shall
imposed
upon
conviction
separate
sentencing
hearing
commences
determine
existence
aggravating
mitigating
factors
eligible
death
penalty
jury
must
find
unanimously
beyond
reasonable
doubt
defendant
least
years
old
time
murder
least
enumerated
aggravating
factors
exists
see
murder
hire
contract
premeditated
murder
preconceived
plan
jury
finds
none
statutory
aggravating
factors
exist
defendant
sentenced
term
imprisonment
unanimous
finding
jury
one
factors
set
forth
subsection
exist
jury
shall
consider
aggravating
mitigating
factors
instructed
shall
determine
whether
sentence
death
shall
imposed
ibid
part
balance
jury
instructed
consider
mitigating
factors
existing
case
five
enumerated
exclusive
state
may
also
present
evidence
relevant
aggravating
factors
beyond
enumerated
statute
ibid
jury
determines
unanimously
mitigating
factors
sufficient
preclude
imposition
death
sentence
shall
sentence
defendant
death
petitioner
derrick
morgan
convicted
cook
county
illinois
murder
sentenced
death
evidence
trial
amply
proved
petitioner
hired
kill
narcotics
dealer
apparently
competing
el
rukns
one
chicago
violent
gangs
petitioner
lured
dealer
friend
abandoned
apartment
shot
head
six
times
upon
consideration
factors
aggravation
mitigation
jury
sentenced
death
three
separate
venires
required
called
jury
finally
chosen
accordance
illinois
law
trial
rather
attorneys
conducted
voir
dire
people
gacy
state
elected
pursue
capital
punishment
requested
inquiry
permitted
witherspoon
illinois
determine
whether
potential
juror
instances
refuse
impose
death
penalty
upon
conviction
offense
accordingly
trial
opposition
defense
questioned
venire
whether
member
moral
religious
principles
strong
impose
death
penalty
regardless
facts
app
seventeen
potential
jurors
excused
expressed
substantial
doubts
ability
follow
illinois
law
deciding
whether
impose
sentence
death
jurors
eventually
empaneled
also
questioned
individually
witherspoon
receiving
responding
negative
question
slight
variation
automatically
vote
death
penalty
matter
facts
case
see
seven
members
first
venire
questioned
including
three
eventually
became
jurors
petitioner
counsel
requested
trial
ask
prospective
jurors
following
question
found
derrick
morgan
guilty
automatically
vote
impose
death
penalty
matter
facts
trial
refused
request
stating
asked
question
different
vein
substantially
nature
ibid
prior
voir
dire
three
venires
trial
explained
general
terms
dictates
illinois
procedure
capital
trials
outlined
see
voir
dire
trial
received
jurors
empaneled
affirmative
response
variations
question
follow
instructions
law
even
though
may
agree
see
however
trial
ask
three
jurors
question
way
see
every
juror
eventually
empaneled
asked
generally
whether
fair
impartial
juror
responded
appropriately
least
one
questions
variation
know
reason
fair
impartial
see
feel
give
sides
fair
trial
see
empaneled
member
jury
swore
oath
well
truly
try
issues
joined
herein
true
deliverance
make
people
state
illinois
defendant
bar
true
verdict
render
according
law
evidence
tr
see
appeal
illinois
affirmed
petitioner
conviction
death
sentence
rejecting
petitioner
claim
pursuant
ross
oklahoma
voir
dire
must
include
life
qualifying
question
upon
request
illinois
concluded
nothing
requires
trial
question
potential
jurors
identify
exclude
vote
death
penalty
every
case
conviction
capital
offense
also
found
violation
ross
concluding
instead
petitioner
jury
selected
fair
community
juror
swore
uphold
law
regardless
personal
feelings
juror
expressed
views
call
impartiality
question
granted
certiorari
considerable
disagreement
among
state
courts
last
resort
question
issue
case
reverse
judgment
illinois
ii
emphasized
previously
one
right
way
state
set
capital
sentencing
scheme
spaziano
florida
citations
omitted
state
constitutionally
required
sixth
amendment
otherwise
provide
jury
determination
whether
death
penalty
shall
imposed
capital
defendant
ibid
illinois
chosen
however
delegate
jury
task
penalty
phase
capital
trials
addition
duty
determine
guilt
innocence
underlying
crime
issue
therefore
whether
petitioner
entitled
relief
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
conclude
course
deal
four
issues
whether
jury
provided
capital
defendant
sentencing
phase
must
impartial
whether
defendant
entitled
challenge
cause
removed
ground
bias
prospective
juror
automatically
vote
death
penalty
irrespective
facts
trial
instructions
law
whether
voir
dire
must
defendant
request
inquire
prospective
jurors
views
capital
punishment
whether
voir
dire
case
constitutionally
sufficient
duncan
louisiana
held
fourteenth
amendment
guaranteed
right
jury
trial
state
criminal
cases
tried
federal
come
within
sixth
amendment
guarantee
trial
jury
prior
decision
applying
sixth
amendment
jury
trial
provision
recognized
irvin
dowd
turner
louisiana
fourteenth
amendment
due
process
clause
independently
required
impartiality
jury
empaneled
try
cause
although
said
fourteenth
amendment
demand
use
jury
trials
state
criminal
procedure
fay
new
york
palko
connecticut
every
state
constitutionally
provided
trial
jury
see
columbia
university
legislative
drafting
research
fund
index
digest
state
constitutions
essence
right
jury
trial
guarantees
criminally
accused
fair
trial
panel
impartial
indifferent
jurors
failure
accord
accused
fair
hearing
violates
even
minimal
standards
due
process
oliver
tumey
ohio
fair
trial
fair
tribunal
basic
requirement
due
process
murchison
ultimate
analysis
jury
strip
man
liberty
life
language
lord
coke
juror
must
indifferent
stands
unsworne
litt
verdict
must
based
upon
evidence
developed
trial
cf
thompson
city
louisville
true
regardless
heinousness
crime
charged
apparent
guilt
offender
station
life
occupies
written
law
early
chief
justice
marshall
burr
trial
theory
law
juror
formed
opinion
impartial
reynolds
irvin
dowd
supra
omitted
thus
decisions
dealing
capital
sentencing
juries
presenting
issues
analogous
decide
today
witherspoon
illinois
adams
texas
wainwright
witt
ross
oklahoma
relied
strictures
dictated
sixth
fourteenth
amendments
ensure
impartiality
jury
undertake
capital
sentencing
see
also
turner
murray
plurality
opinion
witt
held
proper
standard
determining
prospective
juror
may
excluded
cause
views
capital
punishment
whether
juror
views
prevent
substantially
impair
performance
duties
juror
accordance
instructions
oath
quoting
adams
texas
standard
clear
witt
adams
progeny
witherspoon
juror
case
vote
capital
punishment
regardless
instructions
impartial
juror
must
removed
cause
thereafter
ross
oklahoma
supra
state
trial
refused
remove
cause
juror
declared
vote
impose
death
automatically
jury
found
defendant
guilty
juror
however
removed
defendant
use
peremptory
challenge
reason
death
sentence
affirmed
course
reaching
result
announced
considered
view
constitution
guarantees
defendant
trial
life
right
impartial
jury
trial
failure
remove
juror
cause
constitutional
error
standard
enunciated
witt
emphasized
ad
juror
sat
jury
ultimately
sentenced
petitioner
death
petitioner
properly
preserved
right
challenge
trial
failure
remove
juror
cause
sentence
overturned
citing
adams
supra
reiterate
view
today
juror
automatically
vote
death
penalty
every
case
fail
good
faith
consider
evidence
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
instructions
require
indeed
juror
already
formed
opinion
merits
presence
absence
either
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
entirely
irrelevant
juror
therefore
based
requirement
impartiality
embodied
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
capital
defendant
may
challenge
cause
prospective
juror
maintains
views
even
one
juror
empaneled
death
sentence
imposed
state
disentitled
execute
sentence
illinois
fact
raises
challenge
foregoing
precepts
argues
instead
trial
discretion
may
refuse
direct
inquiry
matter
long
questioning
purports
assure
defendant
fair
impartial
jury
able
follow
law
true
oir
dire
conducted
supervision
great
deal
must
necessity
left
sound
discretion
ristaino
ross
quoting
connors
constitution
dictate
catechism
voir
dire
defendant
afforded
impartial
jury
even
part
guaranty
defendant
right
impartial
jury
adequate
voir
dire
identify
unqualified
jurors
dennis
morford
voir
dire
plays
critical
function
assuring
criminal
defendant
constitutional
right
impartial
jury
honored
without
adequate
voir
dire
trial
judge
responsibility
remove
prospective
jurors
able
impartially
follow
instructions
evaluate
evidence
fulfilled
plurality
opinion
hence
exercise
trial
discretion
restriction
upon
inquiries
request
counsel
subject
essential
demands
fairness
aldridge
adequacy
voir
dire
easily
subject
appellate
review
supra
hesitated
particularly
capital
cases
find
certain
inquiries
must
made
effectuate
constitutional
protections
see
turner
murray
supra
ham
south
carolina
holding
ham
instance
follows
since
one
purposes
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
insure
essential
demands
fairness
lisenba
california
since
principal
purpose
adoption
fourteenth
amendment
prohibit
invidiously
discriminating
basis
race
cases
wall
think
fourteenth
amendment
required
judge
case
interrogate
jurors
upon
subject
racial
prejudice
south
carolina
law
permits
challenges
cause
authorizes
trial
judge
conduct
voir
dire
examination
potential
jurors
state
created
statutory
framework
selection
juries
essential
fairness
required
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
requires
facts
shown
record
petitioner
permitted
jurors
interrogated
issue
racial
bias
state
may
entrust
determination
whether
man
live
die
tribunal
organized
return
verdict
death
specifically
hold
sentence
death
carried
jury
imposed
recommended
chosen
excluding
veniremen
cause
simply
voiced
general
objections
death
penalty
expressed
conscientious
religious
scruples
infliction
defendant
constitutionally
put
death
hands
tribunal
selected
footnotes
omitted
see
also
lockhart
mccree
wainwright
witt
revisited
witherspoon
held
affirmatively
state
may
exclude
capital
sentencing
juries
class
veniremen
whose
views
prevent
substantially
impair
performance
duties
accordance
instructions
oaths
see
also
lockett
ohio
indeed
lockhart
mccree
thereafter
spoke
terms
whose
removal
cause
serves
state
entirely
proper
interest
obtaining
single
jury
impartially
decide
issues
capital
case
witt
moreover
short
step
observe
well
lockhart
state
may
challenge
cause
prospective
jurors
whose
opposition
death
penalty
strong
prevent
impartially
determining
capital
defendant
guilt
innocence
ipso
facto
state
must
given
opportunity
identify
prospective
jurors
questioning
voir
dire
views
death
penalty
deal
petitioner
ability
exercise
intelligently
complementary
challenge
cause
biased
persons
venire
jurors
unwaveringly
impose
death
finding
guilt
voir
dire
available
lay
bare
foundation
petitioner
challenge
cause
prospective
jurors
always
impose
death
following
conviction
right
tried
jurors
rendered
nugatory
meaningless
state
right
absence
questioning
strike
never
issue
remaining
whether
questions
propounded
trial
sufficient
satisfy
petitioner
right
make
inquiry
noted
illinois
suggests
general
fairness
follow
law
questions
like
employed
trial
enough
detect
venire
automatically
vote
death
penalty
state
request
questioning
witherspoon
witt
course
belies
argument
witherspoon
succeeding
cases
large
measure
superfluous
convinced
general
inquiries
detect
jurors
views
preventing
substantially
impairing
duties
accordance
instructions
oath
jurors
whether
unalterably
favor
opposed
death
penalty
every
case
definition
ones
perform
duties
accordance
law
protestations
contrary
notwithstanding
general
questions
fairness
impartiality
jurors
truth
candor
respond
affirmatively
personally
confident
dogmatic
views
fair
impartial
leaving
specific
concern
unprobed
importantly
however
belief
death
imposed
ipso
facto
upon
conviction
capital
offense
reflects
directly
individual
inability
follow
law
see
supra
juror
impose
death
regardless
facts
circumstances
conviction
follow
dictates
law
see
turner
murray
plurality
opinion
may
juror
good
conscience
swear
uphold
law
yet
unaware
maintaining
dogmatic
beliefs
death
penalty
prevent
defendant
trial
life
must
permitted
voir
dire
ascertain
whether
prospective
jurors
function
misconception
risk
jurors
may
empaneled
case
infected
petitioner
capital
sentencing
unacceptable
light
ease
risk
minimized
omitted
petitioner
entitled
upon
request
inquiry
discerning
jurors
even
prior
state
case
chief
predetermined
terminating
issue
trial
whether
impose
death
penalty
iii
justice
scalia
dissent
insists
illinois
entitled
try
death
penalty
case
even
jurors
upon
inquiry
announce
automatically
vote
impose
death
penalty
defendant
found
guilty
capital
offense
matter
mitigating
factors
whether
statutory
nonstatutory
might
post
jurors
obviously
deem
mitigating
evidence
irrelevant
decision
impose
death
penalty
refuse
give
evidence
weight
also
plainly
saying
mitigating
evidence
worth
consideration
consider
justice
scalia
jaundiced
view
decision
today
may
best
explained
rejection
line
cases
tracing
woodson
north
carolina
lockett
ohio
developing
nature
role
mitigating
evidence
trial
capital
offenses
see
walton
arizona
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
payne
tennessee
slip
scalia
concurring
sochor
florida
ante
scalia
concurring
part
dissenting
part
view
long
rejected
important
purposes
however
view
finds
support
either
statutory
decisional
law
illinois
law
consistent
requirements
concerning
mitigating
evidence
described
cases
see
turner
murray
supra
white
plurality
opinion
illinois
death
penalty
statute
provides
shall
consider
shall
instruct
jury
consider
aggravating
mitigating
factors
relevant
imposition
death
penalty
ch
supp
lists
certain
mitigating
factors
legislature
must
deemed
relevant
imposition
ibid
statute
explicitly
directs
procedure
controlling
jury
deliberation
unanimous
finding
jury
one
factors
enumerated
aggravation
exist
jury
shall
consider
aggravating
mitigating
factors
instructed
shall
determine
whether
sentence
death
shall
imposed
jury
determines
unanimously
mitigating
factors
sufficient
preclude
imposition
death
sentence
shall
sentence
defendant
death
deciding
whether
defendant
sentenced
death
consider
aggravating
factors
supported
evidence
mitigating
factors
supported
evidence
unanimously
find
consideration
evidence
mitigating
factors
sufficient
preclude
imposition
death
sentence
sign
verdict
requiring
sentence
defendant
death
app
surely
particular
illinois
case
judge
imposes
sentence
defendant
waive
right
jury
sentencing
statute
see
supra
announce
mitigating
evidence
beside
point
intends
impose
death
penalty
without
regard
nature
extent
mitigating
evidence
defendant
found
guilty
capital
offense
judge
refusing
advance
follow
statutory
direction
consider
evidence
disqualify
juror
mitigating
factors
likewise
irrelevant
disqualified
cause
juror
formed
opinion
concerning
merits
case
without
basis
evidence
developed
trial
accordingly
defendant
case
entitled
inquiry
made
proposed
trial
judge
iv
inadequacy
voir
dire
leads
us
doubt
petitioner
sentenced
death
jury
empaneled
compliance
fourteenth
amendment
sentence
stand
turner
murray
accordingly
judgment
illinois
affirming
petitioner
death
sentence
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
questioning
led
removal
cause
one
prospective
juror
following
exchange
follow
instructions
law
case
even
though
might
agree
yes
know
reason
give
defendant
fair
trial
problem
trial
came
friend
parents
murdered
twelve
years
ago
capital
punishment
give
fair
trial
found
guilty
want
hung
fair
impartial
throughout
proceedings
excused
app
illinois
subsequently
emphasized
decision
case
meant
imply
question
inappropriate
indeed
given
type
scrutiny
capital
cases
receive
review
one
think
trial
courts
go
way
afford
defendant
every
possible
safeguard
question
may
means
ensuring
defendant
impartial
jury
certainly
direct
best
way
ensure
prospective
juror
automatically
vote
death
penalty
ask
people
jackson
see
also
state
atkins
delaware
south
carolina
agree
illinois
inquiry
unnecessary
long
questions
oath
juror
swears
fair
impartial
follow
law
see
riley
state
del
cert
denied
state
hyman
cert
denied
missouri
appears
view
well
state
mcmillin
mo
cert
denied
california
georgia
louisiana
new
jersey
north
carolina
utah
virginia
disagree
see
people
bittaker
skipper
state
state
henry
la
state
williams
state
rogers
state
norton
utah
cert
denied
patterson
commonwealth
apparently
arkansas
florida
kentucky
see
pickens
state
ark
cert
denied
gore
state
cert
denied
morris
commonwealth
lower
courts
alabama
also
follow
latter
view
see
bracewell
state
app
cf
henderson
state
crim
app
plain
error
trial
failure
sua
sponte
life
qualify
prospective
jurors
aff
see
virginia
constitutionally
compelled
enough
questions
might
helpful
rather
trial
failure
ask
questions
must
render
defendant
trial
fundamentally
unfair
illinois
argues
changed
structure
death
penalty
jurisprudence
since
furman
georgia
witherspoon
principles
longer
guide
area
analogous
arguments
previously
raised
rejected
adams
texas
considering
texas
death
penalty
scheme
light
witherspoon
stated
urors
texas
must
determine
whether
evidence
presented
state
convinces
beyond
reasonable
doubt
three
questions
put
must
answered
affirmative
must
consider
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
whether
appearing
evidence
presented
trial
guilt
innocence
sentencing
proceedings
jurors
characteristically
know
affirmative
answers
questions
result
automatic
imposition
death
penalty
jurors
whose
exclusion
challenged
petitioner
informed
essence
texas
juries
must
allowed
consider
basis
relevant
evidence
death
sentence
imposed
also
imposed
jurek
texas
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
process
exact
science
jurors
texas
bifurcated
procedure
unavoidably
exercise
range
judgment
discretion
remaining
true
instructions
oaths
adams
supra
citation
omitted
balancing
approach
chosen
illinois
vests
considerably
discretion
jurors
considering
death
penalty
stronger
reason
witherspoon
general
principles
apply
cf
turner
murray
plurality
opinion
fifth
circuit
observed
obiter
dictum
veniremen
potentially
biased
process
voir
dire
designed
cull
venire
persons
demonstrate
fair
either
side
case
clearly
extremes
must
eliminated
spite
evidence
automatically
vote
convict
impose
death
penalty
automatically
vote
acquit
impose
life
sentence
smith
balkcom
emphasis
original
modified
cert
denied
almost
passing
state
also
suggests
inquiry
inapposite
putative
quantitative
difference
illinois
requires
unanimous
verdict
favor
imposing
death
see
supra
thus
one
juror
nullify
imposition
death
penalty
persons
automatically
death
penalty
carry
weight
illinois
argues
persons
automatically
death
penalty
still
need
persuade
remaining
eleven
jurors
vote
death
penalty
brief
respondent
dissent
chooses
champion
argument
post
although
clearly
foreclosed
ross
oklahoma
held
even
one
juror
panel
one
many
see
supra
event
measure
jury
taken
reference
impartiality
individual
juror
illinois
chosen
provide
capital
defendant
jurors
decide
fate
jurors
must
stand
equally
impartial
ability
follow
law
certain
prospective
jurors
maintain
inconsistent
beliefs
follow
law
always
vote
impose
death
conviction
capital
offense
demonstrated
even
case
see
supra
indeed
wainwright
witt
set
forth
following
exchange
highlighting
inconsistency
beliefs
regards
witherspoon
illinois
wait
minute
made
mind
yet
seat
let
ask
things
prefixed
ideas
case
follow
law
give
concerned
indicated
state
mind
might
make
unable
follow
law
state
bring
back
death
penalty
step
illinois
rev
ch
supp
provides
mitigating
factors
may
include
need
limited
following
defendant
significant
history
prior
criminal
activity
murder
committed
defendant
influence
extreme
mental
emotional
disturbance
although
constitute
defense
prosecution
murdered
individual
participant
defendant
homicidal
conduct
consented
homicidal
act
defendant
acted
compulsion
threat
menace
imminent
infliction
death
great
bodily
harm
defendant
personally
present
commission
act
acts
causing
death
decision
today
bearing
validity
petitioner
conviction
witherspoon
justice
scalia
chief
justice
justice
thomas
join
dissenting
today
holds
juror
always
impose
death
penalty
capital
murder
impartial
sense
required
sixth
amendment
constitution
requires
voir
dire
directed
specific
bias
provided
upon
defendant
request
general
questions
fairness
ability
follow
law
asked
voir
dire
case
inadequate
conclusions
seem
jointly
severally
wrong
dissent
today
reaffirms
holding
sixth
amendment
binding
fourteenth
amendment
require
jury
trial
sentencing
phase
capital
case
ante
see
clemons
mississippi
walton
arizona
cabana
bullock
spaziano
florida
see
also
mcmillan
pennsylvania
right
jury
sentencing
noncapital
case
separate
line
cases
however
said
exclusion
persons
merely
express
serious
reservations
capital
punishment
sentencing
juries
violates
right
impartial
jury
sixth
amendment
witherspoon
illinois
see
also
adams
texas
wainwright
witt
two
propositions
course
contradictory
capital
sentencing
subject
sixth
amendment
jury
guarantee
neither
subject
subsidiary
requirement
requisite
jury
impartial
effectively
concedes
sixth
amendment
apply
relying
instead
upon
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
says
requires
sentencing
jury
impartial
extent
sixth
amendment
requires
jury
guilt
phase
impartial
ante
agree
see
gardner
florida
plurality
opinion
sentencing
procedures
must
comply
requirements
due
process
clause
agree
however
unconstitutional
partiality
either
sixth
amendment
fourteenth
amendment
purposes
established
fact
juror
standard
judgment
applies
defendant
trial
others
happens
standard
least
favorable
defense
assume
example
criminal
prosecution
state
plans
prove
elements
circumstantial
evidence
surely
counsel
defendant
establish
unconstitutional
partiality
hence
obtain
mandatory
recusal
juror
getting
state
voir
dire
prosecution
crime
elements
shown
always
vote
convict
admission
simply
demonstrate
particular
juror
standard
judgment
regarding
evidence
deserves
weighed
even
though
application
standard
certainty
cause
juror
vote
convict
case
hand
juror
therefore
biased
partial
constitutionally
forbidden
sense
also
seems
jurors
standards
judgment
concerning
appropriateness
death
penalty
fact
particular
juror
thinks
death
penalty
proper
whenever
capital
murder
established
disqualify
sure
law
governing
sentencing
verdicts
says
jury
may
give
less
death
penalty
circumstances
hypothetical
case
propounded
law
governing
guilt
verdicts
says
jury
may
acquit
despite
proof
elements
neither
case
requirement
option
left
available
jury
convert
requirement
jurors
must
facts
case
amenable
entertaining
option
state
jury
sentencing
violates
due
process
requirement
impartiality
allowing
seating
jurors
favor
death
penalty
state
sentencing
permitting
people
elect
executive
appoint
judges
favor
death
penalty
cf
grinnell
richards
cert
denied
thompson
adams
dissenting
lafave
israel
criminal
procedure
adherence
particular
legal
principle
basis
challenging
impartiality
judge
indeed
precisely
individual
juror
biases
constitutionally
permissible
witherspoon
illinois
imposed
limitation
state
may
skew
makeup
jury
whole
excluding
jurors
ii
view
juror
always
impose
death
penalty
upon
proof
required
aggravating
factors
fail
good
faith
consider
evidence
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
instructions
require
ante
emphasis
added
see
also
ante
agree
true
instructions
required
jurors
deem
certain
evidence
mitigating
weigh
evidence
deciding
penalty
hypothesis
juror
firm
attachment
death
penalty
demonstrate
absence
constitutionally
requisite
impartiality
requires
decisionmaker
able
conscientiously
apply
law
find
facts
witt
supra
see
also
lockhart
mccree
adams
supra
hypothesis
however
true
applied
facts
present
case
remarkably
rests
judgment
upon
juror
inability
comply
instructions
without
bothering
describe
key
instructions
one
considers
perfectly
clear
preclude
juror
taking
view
capital
murder
death
sentence
always
warranted
jury
case
instructed
ggravating
factors
reasons
defendant
sentenced
death
itigating
factors
reasons
defendant
sentenced
death
jury
must
consider
aggravating
factors
supported
evidence
mitigating
factors
supported
evidence
jury
impose
death
sentence
found
consideration
evidence
mitigating
factors
sufficient
preclude
imposition
death
sentence
app
instructions
way
define
constitutes
mitigating
aggravating
factor
point
jury
finding
stage
petitioner
committed
contract
killing
necessarily
aggravator
reflected
instructions
illinois
law
permitted
juror
define
whether
particular
item
evidence
mitigating
sense
provided
reaso
defendant
sentenced
death
thus
simply
case
illinois
law
precluded
juror
taking
position
valid
reasons
defendant
committed
contract
killing
sentenced
death
juror
fail
consider
evidence
ante
cf
ch
supp
shall
instruct
jury
consider
aggravating
mitigating
factors
relevant
simply
fails
give
effect
defendant
desires
exclusion
jurors
justified
theory
regardless
illinois
law
purports
permit
eighth
amendment
prohibits
juror
always
advocating
death
sentence
weighing
stage
cases
area
hold
sentencer
must
give
effect
even
must
consider
evidence
offered
defendant
mitigating
rather
must
precluded
considering
lockett
ohio
plurality
opinion
emphasis
added
bell
ohio
plurality
opinion
see
also
walton
plurality
opinion
requirement
individualized
sentencing
capital
cases
satisfied
allowing
jury
consider
relevant
mitigating
evidence
emphasis
added
quoting
blystone
pennsylvania
saffle
parks
state
bar
relevant
mitigating
evidence
emphasis
added
mckoy
north
carolina
ach
juror
must
permitted
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
emphasis
added
penry
lynaugh
state
may
prevent
sentencer
considering
giving
effect
mitigating
evidence
emphasis
added
jury
must
provided
vehicle
expressing
reasoned
moral
response
evidence
rendering
sentencing
decision
emphasis
added
mills
maryland
state
may
impose
barrier
sentencer
consideration
mitigating
evidence
emphasis
added
turner
murray
plurality
opinion
sentencer
must
free
weigh
relevant
mitigating
evidence
emphasis
added
roberts
louisiana
mandatory
death
penalty
statute
unconstitutional
allow
consideration
particularized
mitigating
factors
emphasis
added
woodson
north
carolina
plurality
opinion
jurek
texas
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
jury
must
allowed
consider
relevant
mitigating
evidence
emphasis
added
similarly
judge
final
sentencer
held
must
consider
mitigating
evidence
may
legal
grounds
refuse
consider
hitchcock
dugger
eddings
oklahoma
sentencing
judge
may
refuse
consider
matter
law
relevant
mitigating
evidence
emphasis
original
woodson
lockett
meant
ensure
sentencing
jury
function
link
contemporary
community
values
penal
system
witherspoon
mean
specify
content
values
must
conscience
community
also
includes
jurors
swayed
mitigating
evidence
relies
upon
dicta
contained
opinion
ross
oklahoma
ante
case
defendant
challenged
cause
juror
stated
voir
dire
automatically
vote
impose
death
sentence
defendant
convicted
trial
rejected
challenge
ross
used
peremptory
challenge
remove
juror
although
noted
state
appellate
assumed
juror
able
follow
law
citing
ross
state
held
ross
deprived
impartial
jury
none
jurors
actually
sat
petit
jury
partial
reaching
conclusion
however
expressed
view
challenged
juror
actually
served
sentence
overturned
attaches
great
weight
dictum
describes
announc
ing
considered
view
ante
hyperbole
clear
face
opinion
dictum
based
entirely
fact
state
assumed
juror
unwilling
follow
law
penalty
phase
point
purport
examine
independently
ross
dictum
thus
merely
reflects
quite
modest
proposition
juror
follow
law
impartial
illinois
violate
due
process
seating
juror
swayed
mitigating
evidence
weighing
stage
constitution
entitle
petitioner
identify
jurors
voir
dire
iii
even
agreed
however
jurors
always
advocate
death
sentence
capital
murder
impartial
must
excused
cause
agree
conclusion
constitution
requires
trial
make
specific
inquiries
subject
voir
dire
virginia
surveyed
cases
concerning
requirements
voir
dire
concluded
except
interracial
capital
crimes
issue
trial
courts
retai
great
latitude
deciding
questions
asked
voir
dire
see
also
ristaino
ross
emphasized
authority
require
specific
inquiries
voir
dire
particularly
narrow
respect
state
trials
may
exercise
supervisory
authority
limited
enforcing
commands
constitution
concluded
general
matter
defendant
entitled
specific
questions
failure
ask
render
trial
fundamentally
unfair
thus
held
absent
special
circumstance
turner
supra
generalized
thorough
inquiry
impartiality
veniremen
constitutionally
adequate
voir
dire
ristaino
supra
finally
long
acknowledged
light
credibility
determinations
involved
trial
finding
particular
juror
impartial
may
overturned
manifest
error
patton
yount
quoting
irvin
dowd
see
also
supra
today
extending
witherspoon
rule
require
affirmatively
capital
sentencing
jury
contain
mix
views
death
penalty
requirement
course
constitute
special
circumstance
necessitating
specific
inquiry
subject
voir
dire
petitioner
sought
purports
decree
theory
described
juror
always
impose
death
penalty
capital
murder
one
fail
good
faith
consider
evidence
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
instructions
require
ante
emphasis
added
even
assuming
contrary
reality
theory
fits
facts
case
instructions
required
jurors
open
voting
death
penalty
basis
allegedly
mitigating
circumstances
see
reason
jurors
defy
element
instructions
like
jurors
defy
elements
instructions
see
supra
identified
general
questions
concerning
fairness
willingness
follow
law
present
case
trial
voir
dire
specifically
asked
nine
jurors
ultimately
served
whether
follow
instructions
even
disagreed
nine
answered
affirmatively
moreover
veniremen
informed
nature
case
instructed
selected
required
follow
instructions
subsequently
jurors
responded
negatively
specific
question
whether
reason
think
fair
impartial
case
questions
part
extensive
voir
dire
succeeded
identifying
one
juror
unable
follow
instructions
penalty
phase
juror
admitted
anger
felt
murder
friend
parents
sentiments
favor
death
penalty
strong
believe
fair
petitioner
sentencing
hearing
taking
appropriate
account
opportunity
trial
observe
evaluate
demeanor
veniremen
see
basis
concluding
finding
jurors
impartial
manifestly
erroneous
provides
two
reasons
specific
question
must
asked
neither
passes
gullible
scrutiny
first
general
questions
insufficient
jurors
truth
candor
respond
affirmatively
personally
confident
dogmatic
views
fair
impartial
ante
words
jurors
always
impose
death
penalty
violating
instructions
without
realizing
seems
quite
obvious
solution
problem
require
specific
question
juror
achieved
simply
changing
instructions
jurors
understand
aggravators
always
outweigh
mitigators
view
prohibited
record
reflect
petitioner
made
objection
clarity
instructions
regard
second
asserts
adequacy
general
voir
dire
questions
belied
state
request
questioning
witherspoon
witt
ante
without
questioning
told
witherspoon
succeeding
cases
large
measure
superfluous
ante
witherspoon
reasoning
assumes
give
state
right
exclude
jurors
clear
beyond
peradventure
witherspoon
ground
challenging
prospective
juror
adams
therefore
quite
impossible
anything
say
subject
today
render
holding
witherspoon
superfluous
describes
ante
short
step
witherspoon
adams
witt
fact
great
leap
unbridgeable
chasm
logic
witherspoon
succeeding
cases
held
state
constitutionally
prevented
excluding
jurors
facts
impose
death
today
concludes
state
constitutionally
compelled
exclude
jurors
facts
establishing
particular
aggravated
murder
invariably
impose
death
argument
constitution
requires
one
must
require
obviously
rests
false
premise
event
mere
fact
illinois
sees
fit
request
one
another
question
voir
dire
order
discover
jurors
logical
matter
establish
general
questioning
constitutionally
inadequate
job
similar
reasons
reject
petitioner
argument
fundamentally
unfair
allow
illinois
make
specific
inquiries
concerning
jurors
always
vote
death
penalty
preclude
defendant
discovering
excluding
jurors
always
vote
favor
death
brief
petitioner
citing
wardius
oregon
even
unfair
course
state
given
option
today
opinion
provide
abandoning
witherspoon
qualification
death
penalty
statute
contain
unanimity
requirement
confident
prosecutors
prefer
wholesale
elimination
jurors
favoring
death
penalty
consequence
today
decision
fact
unfairness
asymmetry
reason
illinois
death
penalty
unanimity
requirement
ch
supp
practical
consequences
allowing
two
types
jurors
serve
vastly
different
single
death
penalty
opponent
block
punishment
unwavering
advocates
impose
fundamentally
asymmetry
unfair
illinois
law
reflected
statute
instructions
case
witherspoon
disqualified
juror
lawless
juror
whereas
juror
disqualified
new
rule
first
stage
illinois
sentencing
hearing
jurors
must
determine
facts
specified
aggravating
factors
second
weighing
stage
must
impose
death
penalty
murder
particular
aggravators
find
mitigating
factors
sufficient
preclude
imposition
whereas
finding
aggravation
mandatory
finding
mitigation
optional
constitutes
mitigation
defined
left
judgment
juror
given
always
aggravators
considered
weighing
stage
juror
says
never
vote
death
penalty
matter
facts
saying
apply
law
classic
case
partiality
since
facts
may
show
mitigation
juror
says
always
vote
death
penalty
promising
lawless
since
case
law
compelled
find
mitigating
fact
sufficiently
mitigating
people
illinois
decided
words
murder
certain
aggravators
punished
death
unless
jury
chooses
extend
mercy
scheme
complies
death
penalty
jurisprudence
existed
yesterday
effect
added
new
rule
merciless
jurors
sit
important
bear
mind
juror
ignore
requirement
finding
aggravating
factor
issue
petitioner
contend
voir
dire
question
seeks
necessary
juror
impartially
make
strictly
factual
determination
first
stage
illinois
sentencing
procedure
defendant
eligible
death
penalty
one
statutorily
required
aggravating
factors
exists
case
fact
murder
contract
killing
obviously
standard
question
whether
juror
obey
instructions
enough
disclose
difficulty
petitioner
theory
accepts
ante
special
voir
dire
question
necessary
identify
veniremen
second
weighing
stage
properly
found
aggravating
factor
never
find
enough
mitigation
preclude
imposing
death
brief
petitioner
attaches
great
weight
use
term
sufficient
instructions
governing
statute
views
term
implicitly
establishing
jurors
must
find
mitigation
else
reasons
jury
determine
whether
sufficient
mitigation
ante
inference
plainly
fallacious
direction
person
consider
whether
sufficient
reasons
something
logically
imply
circumstance
must
find
something
reason
must
find
reason
sufficient
notes
illinois
statute
lists
certain
potentially
mitigating
factors
see
ch
supp
therefore
concludes
legislature
must
deemed
relevant
imposition
death
penalty
ante
course
true
listed
factors
relevant
sense
juror
may
find
mitigating
nd
also
sense
defendant
must
allowed
introduce
evidence
concerning
factors
statute
permissive
nonexhaustive
list
clearly
establish
needs
show
jurors
must
deem
factors
actually
mitigating
fact
jury
discretion
deem
evidence
mitigating
establish
obligation
indeed
impossible
principle
distinguish
juror
believe
factor
mitigating
one
believes
particular
factor
extreme
mental
emotional
disturbance
mitigating
presumably
today
decision
juror
thinks
bad
childhood
never
mitigating
must
also
excluded
event
deciding
whether
vacate
petitioner
sentence
account
juror
impartiality
basis
one
petitioner
jurors
may
refused
follow
instructions
must
guided
instructions
perhaps
given
question
state
law
authority
review
instructions
given
response
point
suggestion
somehow
rests
upon
rejecting
woodson
lockett
line
cases
ante
quotations
dozen
woodson
lockett
cases
make
painfully
clear
claims
case
truly
involved
reverse
principles
established
witherspoon
illinois
cases
following
ante
difficult
understand
petitioner
entitled
challenge
jurors
automatically
impose
death
penalty
also
whose
sentiments
subject
sufficiently
strong
faithful
service
jurors
substantially
impaired
reformulated
standard
adopted
adams
texas
wainwright
witt
failure
carry
premise
logical
conclusion
suggests
awareness
premise
wrong
see
exodus
smiteth
man
die
shall
surely
put
death
kant
philosophy
law
hastie
transl
hoever
committed
murder
must
die
even
civil
society
resolved
dissolve
consent
members
last
murderer
lying
prison
executed
resolution
carried
done
order
every
one
may
realize
desert
deeds