GREENE v. GEORGIA
No. 96-5369.
Decided December 16, 1996
Per Curiam.
Petitioner was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault by a jury in Taylor County, Georgia, and sentenced to death. At trial, over petitioner’s objection, the court excused for cause five jurors who expressed reservations about the death penalty. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, citing Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412 (1985), as “controlling authority” for a rule that appellate courts must defer to trial courts’ findings concerning juror bias. 266 Ga. 439, 440-442, 469 S. E. 2d 129, 134-135 (1996).
Wainwright v. Witt, supra, delineated the standard under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments for determining when a juror may be excused for cause because of his views on the death penalty: whether these views would “ ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.’ ” Id., at 424. Addressing petitioner’s federal constitutional chai-lenge to the juror disqualifications in this case, the Supreme Court of Georgia correctly recognized that Witt is “the controlling authority as to the death-penalty qualification of prospective jurors . . . .” 266 Ga., at 440, 469 S. E. 2d, at 134.
spective . . . Witt also held that, under 28 U. S. C. § 34. courts must accord a presumption of correctness to state courts’ findings of juror bias. 469 U. S., at 426-430. The Supreme Court of Georgia said that Witt was also “controlling authority” on this point, and it therefore ruled that “[t]he conclusion that a prospective juror is disqualified for bias is one that is based upon findings of demeanor and credibility which are peculiarly within the trial court’s province and such findings are to be given deference by appellate courts. Wainwright v. Witt, [469 U. S.,] at 428.” 266 Ga., at 441, 469 S. E. 2d, at 134-135.
at 441, Witt is not “controlling authority” as to -135. review to be applied by state appellate courts reviewing trial courts’ rulings on jury selection. Witt was a case arising on federal habeas, where deference to state-court findings is mandated by 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). But this statute does not govern the standard of review of trial court findings by the Supreme Court of Georgia. There is no indication in that court’s opinion that it viewed Witt as merely persuasive authority, or that the court intended to borrow or adopt the Witt standard of review for its own purposes. It believed itself bound by Witt’s standard of review of trial court findings on jury-selection questions, and in so doing it mistaken.
In a similar case involving a state court’s that the First Amendment required it to reach a particular result, we said: “We conclude that although the State of Ohio may as a matter of its own law privilege the press in the circumstances of this case, the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not require it to do so.” Zacchini v. Scripps- Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U. S. 562, 578-579 (1977). Here, too, the Supreme Court of Georgia is free to adopt the rule laid down in Witt for review of trial court findings in jury-selection cases, but it need not do so. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are therefore granted, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
We express no opinion as to the correctness of the Supreme Court of Georgia’s application of the Witt standard in this case.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.