Grigsby v. Mabry
1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14839, 569 F.Supp. 1273 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments are violated when prospective jurors in a capital case are excluded for cause from the guilt-innocence phase of the trial solely because they hold definitive views against the death penalty. Such a "death qualification" process results in a jury that is not drawn from a fair cross-section of the community and is impermissibly biased in favor of conviction.
Facts:
- Three petitioners, James T. Grigsby, Dewayne Hulsey, and Ardia McCree, were each charged with capital murder in separate trials in Arkansas.
- During the jury selection process (voir dire) for each trial, prospective jurors were questioned about their views on capital punishment.
- In Ardia McCree's trial, eight prospective jurors were removed for cause because they stated they could not impose the death penalty.
- In Dewayne Hulsey's trial, nine prospective jurors were excused for cause due to their opposition to the death penalty.
- These jurors were excluded from serving on the jury that would determine the guilt or innocence of the defendants.
Procedural Posture:
- James T. Grigsby, Dewayne Hulsey, and Ardia McCree were separately convicted of capital murder in Arkansas state trial courts.
- Grigsby and McCree were sentenced to life without parole; Hulsey was sentenced to death.
- McCree's trial attorney objected to the exclusion of death-scrupled jurors, preserving the issue for appeal.
- The three men filed separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, challenging their convictions.
- The district court consolidated the petitions to decide the common issue of whether death-qualifying the jury was unconstitutional.
- Initially, the district court ordered an evidentiary hearing to be held in state court for Grigsby.
- On appeal of that order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the need for an evidentiary hearing but ruled it should be held in the federal district court.
- The Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to hold the evidentiary hearing and make factual findings on whether death-qualified juries are unrepresentative and conviction-prone.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the practice of excluding for cause, from the guilt-innocence phase of a capital trial, all prospective jurors who state they would be unwilling under any circumstances to impose a death sentence violate a defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a trial by an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community?
Opinions:
Majority - Eisele, Chief Judge
Yes, the practice of 'death qualifying' a jury for the guilt-innocence phase of a capital trial violates the defendant's constitutional rights. The process suffers from two serious constitutional defects: first, it denies the accused a trial by a jury representative of a cross-section of the community, and second, it creates juries that are impermissibly conviction-prone. The court found that individuals who are adamantly opposed to the death penalty constitute a 'distinctive group' for Sixth Amendment purposes. Extensive empirical evidence and social science studies demonstrated that this group holds a unique amalgam of attitudes about the criminal justice system and that their exclusion disproportionately removes Black people and women from juries. Furthermore, the court was persuaded by numerous studies showing that jurors who survive the death qualification process are substantially more likely to convict a defendant than a jury drawn from the entire community. The process itself also biases the jury by focusing heavily on punishment before guilt has been determined, creating a presumption of guilt. The state's interest in efficiency and cost-saving by using a single jury for both guilt and penalty phases does not justify these significant constitutional infringements.
Analysis:
This landmark district court opinion is significant for its extensive reliance on social science research to invalidate a common jury selection practice. It directly answers the question left open in Witherspoon v. Illinois, providing the evidentiary basis to conclude that death-qualified juries are conviction-prone. The decision establishes a clear precedent that, to protect a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, a state wishing to use a death-qualified jury for sentencing must employ a separate, non-death-qualified jury for the guilt determination phase. This ruling heavily influenced subsequent litigation on this issue, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court's decision in Lockhart v. McCree, which reversed this line of reasoning but acknowledged the validity of the social science studies presented.
