Ross v. Oklahoma
487 U.S. 81 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The loss of a peremptory challenge, used to cure a trial court's erroneous refusal to remove a juror for cause, does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, so long as the final jury that sits is impartial. A defendant's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights are not violated if they receive the number and type of peremptory challenges provided for by state law, even if that law requires using a challenge to correct a judicial error.
Facts:
- During a motel robbery in Elk City, Oklahoma, Bobby Lynn Ross killed a police officer.
- Ross was subsequently charged with first-degree murder, a capital offense.
- During jury selection, a prospective juror, Darrell Huling, stated that if the jury found Ross guilty, he would automatically vote to impose the death penalty.
- Ross's defense counsel moved to have Huling removed for cause, arguing that Huling was biased and could not follow the law.
- The trial court denied the motion to remove Huling for cause.
- The defense then used one of its nine peremptory challenges to remove Huling from the jury panel.
- Ross's defense ultimately used all nine of its peremptory challenges during jury selection.
- None of the twelve jurors who were ultimately seated and decided the case were challenged for cause by Ross's counsel.
Procedural Posture:
- Bobby Lynn Ross was charged with first-degree murder in an Oklahoma state trial court.
- During jury selection, the trial court denied Ross's for-cause challenge against prospective juror Darrell Huling.
- The jury convicted Ross and sentenced him to death.
- Ross, as the appellant, appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal cases.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that no reversible error occurred because no objectionable juror actually sat on the jury.
- The United States Supreme Court granted Ross's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 forcing a defendant in a capital case to use a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror who should have been excused for cause violate the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to an impartial jury and due process of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. A defendant's right to an impartial jury is not violated when they must use a peremptory challenge to correct a trial court's error in failing to remove a juror for cause, provided the final empaneled jury is impartial. Peremptory challenges are not a constitutional right but a state-created means to achieve an impartial jury. So long as the jury that sits is impartial, the fact that the defendant had to use a peremptory challenge to achieve that result does not mean the Sixth Amendment was violated. Furthermore, there is no due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment because peremptory challenges are creatures of state law, and Oklahoma law qualifies this right by requiring defendants to use challenges to cure such errors. Ross received all that Oklahoma law allowed him, and therefore his due process challenge fails.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The trial court's error effectively deprived the defendant of a peremptory challenge, which is indistinguishable from the situation in Gray v. Mississippi, where the Court held that any error that could have possibly affected the composition of the jury panel as a whole requires reversal. The majority's holding condones a scheme that impermissibly burdens a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury by forcing them to surrender a valuable procedural right—a peremptory challenge—to preserve that fundamental constitutional right. The state's requirement penalizes the defendant for the trial court's error, which cannot be squared with the Sixth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the focus of a Sixth Amendment impartial jury claim is the composition of the jury that actually deliberates, not errors in the selection process that are cured before deliberations begin. It clarifies that the mere 'loss' of a peremptory challenge is not a constitutional injury in itself. This ruling significantly limits the grounds for appeal based on jury selection errors, prioritizing the end result (an impartial seated jury) over the process of achieving it and giving states considerable leeway to define the procedural rules surrounding the use of peremptory challenges.
Unlock the full brief for Ross v. Oklahoma