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 whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations