Abstract
For several years, courts across the country have rejected constitutional challenges to the capital jury selection process known as death qualification. This process removes, for cause, potential jurors who hold such strong convictions opposing the death penalty that they could never vote to impose it in the penalty phase of a bifurcated capital proceeding. Opponents of the process, supported by a variety of empirical data and social science studies, adhere to the notion that death qualification results in a jury which is unfairly prone to convict. Therefore, they argue, the procedure is unconstitutional. The Utah Supreme Court recently demonstrated its sharp division over this issue in State v. Young. Although a majority of the court upheld the practice of death qualification, one justice would have ruled it unconstitutional under the Utah Constitution. Two stood strongly behind the validity of the process based on both Utah and federal law. The remaining two justices indicated that death qualification was constitutional, but that they would change their views with the introduction of more evidence proving jury bias.
Recommended Citation
Knapp, George D.
(1995)
"Death Qualification and the Right to
an Impartial Jury Under the State
Constitution: Capital Jury Selection
in Utah After State v. Young,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1995:
No.
2, Article 14.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1995/iss2/14