Morgan v. Illinois

United States Supreme Court
504 U.S. 719 (1992)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a capital defendant be permitted on voir dire to inquire whether a prospective juror would automatically impose the death penalty upon the defendant's conviction.

Facts:

Derrick Morgan was hired for $4,000 to kill a narcotics dealer who was apparently a competitor of the El Rukns gang.
The target of the hired killing was a friend of Morgan.
Morgan lured his friend into an abandoned apartment.
Morgan shot the man in the head six times, killing him.

Procedural Posture:

Derrick Morgan was tried for first-degree murder in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, a state trial court.
During voir dire, the trial judge, at the State's request, asked prospective jurors whether they would automatically vote against the death penalty (the 'Witherspoon' question), excusing 17 for cause on this basis.
Morgan’s counsel requested the judge ask prospective jurors if they would automatically vote to impose the death penalty if they found Morgan guilty.
The trial judge refused this request.
Morgan was convicted of first-degree murder, and the jury sentenced him to death.
Morgan appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, arguing the trial court's refusal to ask the 'reverse-Witherspoon' question violated his rights.
The Illinois Supreme Court, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction and sentence.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among state high courts on the issue.

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 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a trial court, during voir dire in a capital case, to ask potential jurors upon the defendant's request if they would automatically vote to impose the death penalty upon conviction?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice White

Yes. A capital defendant's right to an impartial jury under the Due Process Clause entitles him to inquire into the prospective jurors' views on capital punishment during voir dire. A juror who would automatically vote for the death penalty in every case, regardless of the mitigating evidence presented, is not an impartial juror and cannot follow the law as instructed. General questions about fairness or the ability to follow the law are insufficient to uncover this specific bias, as a juror might sincerely believe their dogmatic view is fair. Therefore, refusing a defendant's request to ask this 'reverse-Witherspoon' question renders the voir dire inadequate and violates the essential demands of fairness required for a capital sentencing.

Dissenting - Justice Scalia

No. The Constitution does not require a trial court to make specific inquiries into whether a juror would always impose the death penalty for capital murder. A juror who believes the death penalty is always appropriate for a certain crime is not 'partial' in a constitutionally forbidden sense; they are merely applying their own standard of judgment, which Illinois law does not forbid. The instructions in this case did not require jurors to find any particular evidence to be mitigating, only to consider it. General questions about fairness and willingness to follow the law are sufficient to identify jurors who will defy instructions, and the trial court's finding of impartiality was not manifestly erroneous.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a crucial, symmetrical right in capital jury selection. It complements the prosecution's right under Witherspoon v. Illinois to remove jurors who would never impose the death penalty (to 'death qualify' a jury). Now, capital defendants have a constitutional right to remove jurors who would always impose it (to 'life qualify' a jury). The ruling solidifies the principle that impartiality at the sentencing phase requires jurors to be genuinely open to considering both life and death, based on the specific aggravating and mitigating evidence presented in the case. This prevents the seating of jurors who have predetermined the sentence based solely on the finding of guilt.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Morgan v. Illinois (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature