White v. Wheeler
136 S. Ct. 456
SCOTUS2015Background
- Roger Wheeler was convicted of two 1997 murders in Kentucky; DNA evidence linked him to the crime and he was sentenced to death.
- During capital voir dire, Juror 638 gave equivocal, inconsistent answers about whether he could realistically consider the death penalty.
- The prosecution moved to strike Juror 638 for cause; the trial judge initially noted the juror could consider the full range but reserved ruling, reviewed the transcript overnight, and then struck the juror for cause.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the excusal of Juror 638, finding no Sixth Amendment error.
- On habeas review the Sixth Circuit granted relief, holding the excusal unconstitutionally inconsistent with Witherspoon/Witt; the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Sixth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (White) | Defendant's Argument (Wheeler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excusing Juror 638 violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments under Witherspoon/Witt | Trial judge reasonably concluded juror could not realistically consider death; excusal was permissible | Juror’s answers showed thoughtful engagement and ability to consider all penalties; excusal was unreasonable | Court held the Kentucky courts reasonably applied Witherspoon/Witt; excusal did not violate clearly established federal law |
| Whether the Sixth Circuit applied AEDPA’s deferential standard properly in reviewing the state-court ruling | AEDPA requires doubly deferential review; state-court decision was within fairminded disagreement | Sixth Circuit undervalued state-court deference and misread juror exchange | Court reversed Sixth Circuit for failing to ask whether state decision was unreasonable beyond fairminded disagreement |
| Whether a trial judge’s post-voir dire reflection (vs. immediate strike) reduces deference to her credibility/demeanor assessment | Judge’s later deliberation and transcript review are permissible and entitled to deference | Wheeler argued initial nonstrike undermines deference to judge’s later decision | Court held deliberation after voir dire is acceptable and can increase—not diminish—deference |
| Whether harmless-error analysis was required if juror exclusion were erroneous | State argued not necessary because exclusion was not erroneous; alternatively harmlessness not reached | Wheeler argued exclusion was constitutional error and would require relief absent harmlessness | Court did not reach harmless-error question because it found no unreasonable application of federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968) (capital jurors who are unwilling to impose death cannot be excluded only if they are not merely hesitant)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (juror may be excused when judge has definite impression juror cannot faithfully apply law)
- Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (2007) (trial-court findings on juror impartiality receive deference; federal habeas review is doubly deferential)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (state court rulings must be upheld unless decision is unreasonable beyond fairminded disagreement under AEDPA)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (discusses standards of review and deference in federal habeas corpus proceedings)