Death qualification and conviction proneness: witt and witherspoon compared

Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense in Capital Cases: (Im)partiality fromWitherspoontoWitt

“…Though researchers such as Kadane (1984) and Haney, Hurtado, and Vega (1994) have found that only 1% of potential jurors fall into this category, others such as Neises and Dillehay (1987) have found fully 24% of potential jurors to be ADP jurors. Instead of representing differences among these samples, however, these inconsistencies appear to be an artifact of how these groups are defined.…”

“…On the more conservative end, those finding very small numbers of ADP jurors have tended to define these jurors as those who would always vote to impose the death penalty irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the case. On the more liberal side, however, not all of the facts and circumstances of the case are set aside, and potential jurors are asked whether they would always vote to impose the death penalty when they were certain that the defendant was guilty of first-degree murder (e.g., Neises & Dillehay, 1987). In essence, this distinction appears to capture more penalty nullifiers who report that they would always vote for the death penalty for guilty defendants, irrespective of aggravating and mitigating evidence.…”

“…Similarly, 22% (n = 67) of participants were classified as Witt excludables due to reporting that they felt so strongly about the death penalty that their views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties as a juror in a capital case. Twenty-seven percent (n = 85) were categorized as automatic-death penalty excludables for reporting that they would always vote to impose the death penalty in every case if they were sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of first degree murder (Neises & Dillehay, 1987). Combining death qualification and ADP status, 51% (n = 149) were excludable under the combined Witherspoon-ADP formula, and 50% (n = 145) were excludable under the combined Witt-ADP formula.…”

“…In addition, similar questions were asked to assess their death-qualification designation according to the Witt standard. Finally, one question taken from Neises and Dillehay (1987) was asked to evaluate participants automatic death penalty status.…”

“…For mentally ill defendants facing the possibility of capital punishment, this bias becomes particularly troublesome, as the controversial jury selection process of death qualification that excludes potential jurors who have objections against capital punishment has been shown to result in a more biased jury composition (Butler & Wasserman, 2006;Fitzgerald & Ellsworth, 1984;Thompson, 1989). As the death qualification process has evolved as a result of the Supreme Court's decisions in Witherspoon v Illinois (1968) and Wainright v Witt (1980), research has documented increasing levels of jury bias in favor of conviction and the imposition of capital punishment due to the increased ease of excluding potential jurors as a result of the changes from Witherspoon to Witt (Neises & Dillehay, 1987).…”