Gray v. Mississippi (1986)
- Docket
- 85-5454
- Decided
- 1986-01-01
Summary
Question: Did the Supreme Court of Mississippi err in affirming Gray’s death sentence by holding that the excusal of a juror was a harmless error and not a violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? Conclusion: Yes. In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the Court held that the exclusion of Bounds was a reversible constitutional error not subject to harmless-error review. He wrote that the state could only exclude jurors who would frustrate the administration of capital sentencing schemes by not following their oaths. Justice Blackmun noted that the Mississippi Supreme Court unanimously agreed that Bounds was qualified to sit as a juror. Justice Blackmun rejected Mississippi’s argument that the trial judge restored a peremptory challenge to the prosecutor to use against Bounds, pointing out that the trial judge explicitly stated that Bounds was removed for cause. He also rejected the state’s argument that the trial judge remedied an erroneous denial of a for-cause motion by granting an erroneous motion. Justice Blackmun reasoned that the court’s error was no less a constitutional violation because the trial judge may have improperly deprived the prosecution of peremptory challenges. He wrote that the relevant question was not whether the court excluded a prospective juror erroneously, but rather whether the composition of the jury panel could have been affected by the court’s error. Finally, Justice Blackmun rejected Mississippi’s argument that the exclusion of Bounds was a harmless technical error because it did not have prejudicial effect. He argued that courts could not say with confidence that an erroneous exclusion for cause of a scrupled, eligible, venire member was an isolated incident. Justice Louis Powell concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. He disagreed with the plurality’s reliance on real-world factors such as the prosecutor’s use of the peremptory challenges, arguing that the reasons for the prosecutor’s use of those challenged was irrelevant. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Byron White, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. He argued that Bounds would have been excluded if the trial court properly granted the prosecutor’s for-cause motion, and thus the composition of the jury was ultimately unaffected.