upholding exclusion of prospective juror where “the trial judge did articulate an unquestionably correct legal standard [under Witt ] on many ... occasions during the voir dire”
How later courts described this case
- upholding exclusion of prospective juror where “the trial judge did articulate an unquestionably correct legal standard [under Witt ] on many ... occasions during the voir dire”
- “A conscientious trial judge must be bent upon determining if a prospective juror has such a mind set that he or she would refuse to vote for the death penalty regardless of the evidence in the case. That is fact-finding.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I agree with the court’s decision to affirm the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief, though for different reasons. As I wrote in dissenting to our previous en banc disposition, Darden v. Wainwright, 725 F.2d 1526, 1533 (1984), the district court should have dismissed the habeas petition in this case because it contained several unexhausted claims. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-22 , 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203-05 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982); Galtieri v. Wainwright, 582 F.2d 348, 354 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). As for the merits of petitioner’s Witherspoon claim, assuming it to be properly before the court, I would reject the claim for want of a showing by petitioner of “cause” and “prejudice” under Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 90-91 , 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2508-09 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), since petitioner denied the Florida Supreme *755 Court an opportunity to pass on it in reviewing his conviction and death sentence on appeal. Darden v. Wainwright, 725 F.2d at 1544-51 (Tjoflat, J., dissenting). Were I to consider four square the precise Witherspoon claim petitioner now presents to us, I would agree with the court that Wainwright v. Witt, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 844 (1985), requires us to hold that the state trial judge did not violate the Constitution in excusing venireman Murphy for cause.