Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961)
717
81 S.Ct. 1639
6 L.Ed.2d 751
As stated in the former opinion, 359 U.S. at pages 396397, 79 S.Ct. at page
827:
'The constitutional claim arises in this way. Six murders were committed in the
vicinity of Evansville, Indiana, two in December 1954, and four in March 1955.
The crimes, extensively covered by news media in the locality, aroused great
excitement ad indignation throughout Vanderburgh County, where Evansville is
located, and adjoining Gibson County, a rural county of approximately 30,000
inhabitants. The petitioner was arrested on April 8, 1955. Shortly thereafter, the
Prosecutor of Vanderburgh County and Evansville police officials issued press
releases, which were intensively publicized, stating that the petitioner had
confessed to the six murders. The Vanderburgh County Grand Jury soon
indicted the petitioner for the murder which resulted in his conviction. This was
the murder of Whitney Wesley Kerr allegedly committed in Vanderburgh
County on December 23, 1954. Counsel appointed to defend petitioner
immediately sought a change of venue from Vanderburgh County, which was
granted, but to adjoining Gibson County. Alleging that the widespread and
inflammatory publicity had also highly prejudiced the inhabitants of Gibson
County against the petitioner, counsel, on October 29, 1955, sought another
change of venue, from Gibson County to a county sufficiently removed from
the Evansville locality that a fair trial would not be prejudiced. The motion was
denied, apparently because the pertinent Indiana statute allows only a single
change of venue.'
During the course of the voir dire examination, which lasted some four weeks,
petitioner filed two more motions for a change of venue and eight motions for
continuances. All were denied.
At the outset we are met with the Indiana statute providing that only one
change of venue shall be granted 'from the county' wherein the offense was
committed.2 Since petitioner had already been afforded one change of venue,
and had been denied further changes solely on the basis of the statute, he
attacked its constitutionality. The Court of Appeals upheld its validity.
However, in the light of State ex rel. Gannon v. Porter Circuit Court, 239 Ind.
637, 159 N.E.2d 713, we do not believe that argument poses a serious problem.
There the Indiana Supreme Court held that if it was 'made to appear after
attempt has actually been made to secure an impartial jury that such jury could
not be obtained in the county of present venue * * * it becomes the duty of the
judiciary to provide to every accused a public trial by an impartial jury, even
though to do so the court must grant a second change of venue and thus
contravenue (the statute) * * *.' 239 Ind at page 642, 159 N.E.2d at page 715.
The prosecution attempts to distinguish that case on the ground that the District
Attorney there conceded that a fair trial could not be had in La Porte County
and that the court, therefore, properly ordered a second change of venue despite
the language of the statute. Inasmuch as the statute says nothing of concessions,
we do not believe that the Indiana Supreme Court conditions the duty of the
judiciary to transfer a case to another county solely upon the representation by
the prosecutor regardless of the trial court's own estimate of local conditions
that an impartial jury may not be impaneled. As we read Gannon, it stands for
the proposition that the necessity for transfer will depend upon the totality of
the surrounding facts. Under this construction the statute is not, on its face,
subject to attack on due process grounds.
6
England, from whom the Western World has largely taken its concepts of
individual liberty and of the dignity and worth of every man, has bequeathed to
us safeguards for their preservation, the most priceless of which is that of trial
by jury. This right a become as much American as it was once the most
English. Although this Court has said that the Fourteenth Amendment does not
demand the use of jury trials in a State's criminal procedure, Fay v. People of
State of New York, 332 U.S. 261, 67 S.Ct. 1613, 91 L.Ed. 2043; Palko v. State
of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288, every State has
constitutionally provided trial by jury. See Columbia University Legislative
Drafting Research Fund, Index Digest of State Constitutions, 578579 (1959).
In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial
by a panel of impartial, 'indifferent' jurors. The failure to accord an accused a
fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. In re Oliver,
333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682; Tumey v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S.
510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749. 'A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic
requirement of due process.' In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623,
625, 99 L.Ed. 942. In the ultimate analysis, only the jury can strip a man of his
liberty or his life. In the language of Lord Coke, a juror must be as 'indifferent
as he stands unsworne.' Co.Litt. 155b. His verdict must be based upon the
evidence developed at the trial. Cf. Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S.
199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654. This is true, regardless of the heinousness of
the crime charged, the apparent guilt of the offender or the station in life which
he occupies. It was so written into our law as early as 1807 by Chief Justice
Marshall in 1 Burr's Trial 416(1807).3 'The theory of the law is that a juror who
has formed an opinion cannot be impartial.' Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S.
145, 155, 25 L.Ed. 244.
It is not required, however, that the jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and
issues involved. In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of
communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the
public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors
will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case.
This is particularly true in criminal cases. To hold that the mere existence of
any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without
more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality
would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay
aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence
presented in court. Spies v. People of State of Illinois, 123 U.S. 131, 8 S.Ct. 22,
31 L.Ed. 80; Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021;
Reynolds v. United States, supra.
8
The rule was established in Reynolds that '(t)he finding of the trial court upon
that issue (the force of a prospective juror's opinion) ought not be set aside by a
reviewing court, unless the error is manifest.' 98 U.S. at page 156. In later cases
this Court revisited Reynolds, citing it in each instance for the proposition that
findings of impartiality should be set aside only where prejudice is 'manifest.'
Holt v. United States, supra; Spies v. People of State of Illinois, supra; Hopt v.
People of State of Utah, 120 U.S. 430, 7 S.Ct. 614, 30 L.Ed. 708. Indiana
agrees that a trial by jurors having a fixed, preconceived opinion of the
accused's guilt would be a denial of due process, but points out that the voir dire
examination discloses that each juror qualified under the applicable Indiana
statute.4 It is true that the presiding judge personally examined those members
of the jury panel whom petitioner, having no more peremptory challenges,
insisted should be excused for cause, and that each indicated that
notwithstanding his opinion he could render an impartial verdict. But as Chief
Justice Hughes observed in United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 145146, 57
S.Ct. 177, 185, 81 L.Ed. 78: 'Impartiality is not a technical conception. It is a
state of mind. For the ascertainment of this mental attitude of appropriate
indifference, the Constitution lays down no particular tests and procedure is not
chained to any ancient and artificial formula.'
10
It cannot be gainsaid that the force of this continued adverse publicity caused a
sustained excitement and fostered a strong prejudice among the people of
Gibson County. In fact, on the second day devoted to the selection of the jury,
the newspapers reported that 'strong feelings, often bitter and angry, rumbled to
the surface,' and that 'the extent to which the multiple murdersthree in one
familyhave aroused feelings throughout the area was emphasized Friday
when 27 of the 35 prospective jurors questioned were excused for holding
biased pretrial opinions * * *.' A few days later the feeling was described as 'a
pattern of deep and bitter prejudice against the former pipe-fitter.' Spectator
comments, as printed by the newspapers, were 'my mind is made up'; 'I think he
is guilty'; and 'he should be hanged.'
12
13
Here the 'pattern of deep and bitter prejudice' shown to be present throughout
the community, cf. Stroble v. State of California, 343 U.S. 181, 72 S.Ct. 599,
96 L.Ed. 872, was clearly reflected in the sum total of the voir dire examination
of a majority of the jurors finally placed in the jury box. Eight out of the 12
thought petitioner was guilty. With such an opinion permeating their minds, it
would be difficult to say that each could exclude this preconception of guilt
from his deliberations. The influence that lurks in an opinion once formed is so
persistent that it unconsciously fights detachment from the mental processes of
the average man. See Delaney v. United States, 1 Cir., 199 F.2d 107, 39
A.L.R.2d 1300. Where one's life is at stake and accounting for the frailties of
human naturewe can only say that in the light of the circumstances here the
finding of impartiality does not meet constitutional standards. Two-thirds of the
jurors had an opinion that petitioner was guilty and were familiar with the
material facts and circumstances involved, including the fact that other murders
were attributed to him, some going so far as to say that it would take evidence
to overcome their belief. One said that he 'could not * * * give the defendant
the benefit of the doubt that he is innocent.' Another stated that he had a
'somewhat' certain fixed opinion as to petitioner's guilt. No doubt each juror
was sincere when he said that he would be fair and impartial to petitioner, but
psychological impact requiring such a declaration before one's fellows is often
its father. Where so many, so many times, admitted prejudice, such a statement
of impartiality can be given little weight. As one of the jurors put it, 'You can't
forget what you hear and see.' With his life at stake, it is not requiring too much
that petitioner be tried in an atmosphere undisturbed by so huge a wave of
public passion and by a jury other than one in which two-thirds of the members
admit, before hearing any testimony, to possessing a belief in his guilt. Stroble
v. State of California, 343 U.S. 181, 72 S.Ct. 599; Shepherd v. State of Florida,
341 U.S. 50, 71 S.Ct. 549, 95 L.Ed. 740 (concurring opinion); Moore v.
Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 43 S.Ct. 265, 67 L.Ed. 543.
14
15
16
17
Of course I agree with the Court's opinion. But this is, unfortunately, not an
isolated case that happened in Evansville, Indiana, nor an atypical miscarriage
of justice due to anticipatory r ial by newspapers instead of trial in court before
a jury.
18
More than one student of society has expressed the view that not the least
significant test of the quality of a civilization is its treatment of those charged
with crime, particularly with offenses which arouse the passions of a
community. One of the rightful boasts of Western civilization is that the State
has the burden of establishing guilt solely on the basis of evidence produced in
court and under circumstances assuring an accused all the safeguards of a fair
procedure. These rudimentary conditions for determining guilt are inevitably
wanting if the jury which is to sit in judgment on a fellow human being comes
to its task with its mind ineradicably poisoned against him. How can fallible
men and women reach a disinterested verdict based exclusively on what they
heard in court when, before they entered the jury box, their minds were
saturated by press and radio for months preceding by matter designed to
establish the guilt of the accused. A conviction so secured obviously constitutes
a denial of due process of law in its most rudimentary conception.
19
Not a Term passes without this Court being importuned to review convictions,
had in States throughout the country, in which substantial claims are made that
a jury trial has been distorted because of inflammatory newspaper accounts
too often, as in this case, with the prosecutor's collaborationexerting
pressures upon potential jurors before trial and even during the course of trial,
thereby making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to secure a jury capable
of taking in, free of prepossessions, evidence submitted in open court. Indeed
such extraneous influences, in violation of the decencies guaranteed by our
Constitution, are sometimes so powerful that an accused is forced, as a practical
matter, to forego trial by jury. See State of Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show,
338 U.S. 912, 915, 70 S.Ct. 252, 253, 94 L.Ed. 562. For one reason or another
this Court does not undertake to review all such envenomed state prosecutions.
But, again and again, such disregard of fundamental fairness is so flagrant that
the Court is compelled, as it was only a week ago, to reverse a conviction in
which prejudicial newspaper intrusion has poisoned the outcome. Janko v.
United States, 366 U.S. 716, 81 S.Ct. 1662, 6 L.Ed.2d 846; see e.g., Marshall v.
United States, 360 U.S. 310, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250. See also Stroble v.
State of California, 343 U.S. 181, 198, 72 S.Ct. 599, 607, 96 L.Ed. 872
(dissenting opinion); Shepherd v. State of Florida, 341 U.S. 50, 71 S.Ct. 549, 95
L.Ed. 740 (concurring opinion). This Court has not yet decided that the fair
'(L)ight impressions which may fairly be supposed to yield to the testimony that
may be offered; which may leave the mind open to a fair consideration of that
testimony, constitute no sufficient objection to a juror; but that those strong and
deep impressions, which will close the mind against the testimony that may be
offered in opposition to them; which will combat that testimony and resist its
force, do constitute a sufficient objection to him.'