Uttecht v. Brown

Uttecht v. Brown
F.3d 946, reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Majority	Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
Dissent	Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent	Breyer, joined by Souter

Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (2007), was a case dealing with jury selection in capital cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that appeals courts must defer to a trial judge’s decision on whether a potential juror would be able to overcome demur about capital punishment and be open to voting to impose a death sentence.

Background and court history

Cal Coburn Brown, who had an extensive criminal history involving violence against women, was convicted of carjacking a woman at knifepoint, holding her in a motel for 34 hours, raping, torturing and eventually murdering her, leaving her body in her car's trunk.^[1][2] He was sentenced to death in a Washington State Court. After his conviction was affirmed by state courts, Brown filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, in which he argued in part that the state trial judge had improperly dismissed a juror without finding that the juror's views on capital punishment would impair his ability to follow the law. The district denied his petition and Brown appealed.

The

The question before the Court was whether or not the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had made an error by not deferring to the trial judge's observations concerning a prospective juror's views on capital punishment and by not applying the statutory presumption of correctness in ruling that the state court decision to remove a juror was contrary to clearly established federal law.[4]

Opinion of the Supreme Court

In a 5-4 conservative-liberal split the majority found that the 9th Circuit had indeed erred when they overruled the Washington State Court's decision and invalidated Brown's death sentence. The precedents of Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985), and Darden v. Wainwright, 447 U.S. 168 (1986), established that a state trial judge may, without presenting any explicit findings or conclusions, remove a juror for cause when the judge determines the juror's views on the death penalty would substantially limit his or her ability to follow the law and perform the duties of a juror.^[3] Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that appeals courts must defer to a trial judge’s decision on whether a potential juror would be able to overcome qualms regarding the death penalty and be open to voting to impose execution as a sentence.^[5]

Dissent

The dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer, and written by Justice Stevens expressed concern that the decision set the disqualification bar for prospective jurors too low and in effect could cause juries to be more likely to vote for a death sentence.

Subsequent events

Brown remained on

• List of most recent executions by jurisdiction
• List of people executed in Washington
• List of people executed in the United States in 2010
• List of United States Supreme Court cases
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 551

References

External links

• Text of Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (2007) is available from: Justia  Oyez (oral argument audio)  Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)