Witherspoon v. Illinois
United States Supreme Court
391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Witherspoon (defendant) was prosecuted for capital murder. At the time, an Illinois statute allowed the prosecution (plaintiff) to challenge for cause “any juror who shall, on being examined, state that he has conscientious scruples against capital punishment, or that he is opposed to the same.” That gave the prosecution unlimited challenges against jurors who expressed any reservations about the death penalty. Early in the jury selection process, the judge said, “Let’s get these conscientious objectors out of the way, without wasting any time on them.” The prosecution eliminated nearly half the prospective jurors as a result, with 47 removed in rapid succession solely because of their views on the death penalty. Only five of those explicitly stated they could never impose it. Six said they did not believe in the death penalty but were not asked whether they could nonetheless impose it before the judge removed them. The judge questioned at length only one juror, who twice said she would not “like to be responsible” for putting someone to death before the judge told her to “step aside.” The resulting jury convicted Witherspoon and sentenced him to death. The Illinois courts denied post-conviction relief, but the Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Douglas, J.)
Dissent (White, J.)
Dissent (Black, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
