PATTON et al. v. YOUNT
No. 83-95.
Argued February 28, 1984
Decided June 26, 1984
F. Cortez Bell III argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Thomas F. Morgan.
George E. Schumacher, by appointment of the Court, 464 U. S. 980, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Thomas S. White and James V. Wade.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case brings before us a claim that pretrial publicity so infected a state criminal trial as to deny the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to an “impartial jury.”
On April 28, 1966, the body of Pamela Rimer, an 18-year-old high school student, was found in a wooded area near her home in Luthersburg, Clearfield County, Pa. There were numerous wounds about her head and cuts on her throat and neck. An autopsy revealed that she died of strangulation when blood from her wounds was drawn into her lungs. The autopsy showed no indication that she had been sexually assaulted.
At about 5:45 the following morning, respondent Yount appeared at the State Police Substation in nearby DuBois. Yount, who had been the victim’s high school mathematics teacher, proceeded to give the police oral and written confessions to the murder. The police refused to release the confession to the press, and it was not published until after it was read at Yount’s arraignment three days later. Record, Ex. P-l-a, P-l-d. At his trial in 1966, the confessions were admitted into evidence. Yount took the stand and claimed temporary insanity. The jury convicted him of first-degree murder and rape, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. On direct appeal the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), police had given Yount inadequate notice of his right to an attorney prior to his confession. The court remanded for a new trial. Commonwealth v. Yount, 435 Pa. 276, 256 A. 2d 464 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 925 (1970).
Prior to the second trial in 1970, the trial court ordered suppression of Yount’s written confessions and that portion of the oral confession that was obtained after he was legally in custody. The prosecution dismissed the rape charge. There followed an extensive voir dire that is now at the heart of this case. Jury selection began on November 4, 1970, and took 10 days, 7 jury panels, 292 veniremen, and 1,186 pages of testimony. Yount moved for a change of venue before, and several times during, the voir dire. He argued that the widespread dissemination of prejudicial information could not be eradicated from the minds of potential jurors, and cited in support the difficulty of the voir dire and numerous newspaper and other articles about the case. The motions were denied. The trial court noted that the articles merely reported events without editorial comment; that the length of the voir dire resulted in part from the court’s leniency in allowing examinations and challenges of the jurors; that “almost all, if not all,” the jurors seated had “no prior or present fixed opinion”; and that there had been “little, if any, talk in public” between the two trials. The court also observed that the voir dire of the second trial had been sparsely attended.
Ultimately, 12 jurors and 2 alternates were seated. At the second trial, Yount did not take the stand and did not claim temporary insanity. Instead he relied upon cross-examination and character witnesses in an attempt to undermine the State’s proof of his intent. The jury convicted him again of first-degree murder, and he was resentenced to life imprisonment. The trial court denied a motion for a new trial, finding that practically no publicity had been given to the case between the two trials, and that little public interest was shown during the second trial. App. 268a. In addition, the court concluded that the jury was without bias. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the trial court’s findings. Commonwealth v. Yount, 455 Pa. 303, 311-314, 314 A. 2d 242, 247-248 (1974).
In January 1981, Yount filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in United States District Court. He claimed, inter alia, that his conviction had been obtained in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. The case was assigned to a Magistrate, who conducted a hearing and recommended that the petition be granted. The District Court rejected the Magistrate’s recommendation. 537 F. Supp. 873 (WD Pa. 1982). It held that the pretrial publicity was not vicious, excessive, nor officially sponsored, and that the jurors were able to set aside any preconceived notions of guilt. It noted that the percentage of jurors excused for cause was “not remarkable to anyone familiar with the difficulty in selecting a homicide jury in Pennsylvania.” Id., at 882. In addition, the court reviewed the instances in which the state trial court had denied a challenge for cause, and upheld the trial court’s view that the jury was impartial.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. 710 F. 2d 956 (1988). The court relied primarily on the analysis set out in Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717 (1961), and found that pretrial publicity had made a fair trial impossible in Clear-field County. It independently examined the nature of the publicity surrounding the second trial, the testimony at voir dire of the venire as a whole, and the voir dire testimony of the jurors eventually seated. The publicity revealed Yount’s prior conviction for murder, his confession, and his prior plea of temporary insanity, information not admitted into evidence at trial. The voir dire showed that all but 2 of 163 veniremen questioned about the case had heard of it, and that, 126, or 77%, admitted they would carry an opinion into the jury box. This was a higher percentage than in Irvin, where 62% of the 430 veniremen were dismissed for cause because they had fixed opinions concerning the petitioner’s guilt. Finally, the Court of Appeals found that 8 of the 14 jurors and alternates actually seated admitted that at some time they had formed an opinion as to Yount’s guilt. The court thought that many of the jurors had given equivocal responses when asked whether they could set aside these opinions, and that one juror, a Mr. Hrin, and both alternates would have required evidence to overcome their beliefs. The court concluded that “despite their assurances of impartiality, the jurors could not set aside their opinions and render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented.” 710 F. 2d, at 972.
Judge Garth concurred in the judgment. He declined to join the court’s view that actual prejudice on the part of the jury might be inferred from pretrial publicity and the answers at voir dire of veniremen not selected for the jury. He wrote that “[a] thorough and skillfully conducted voir dire should be adequate to identify juror bias, even in a community saturated with publicity adverse to the defendant.” Id., at 979. Judge Garth nevertheless concurred because in his view juror Hrin stated at voir dire that he would have required evidence to change his mind about Yount’s guilt. This stripped the defendant of the presumption of innocence.
We granted certiorari, 464 U. S. 913 (1983), to consider, in the context of this case, the problem of pervasive media publicity that now arises so frequently in the trial of sensational criminal cases. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
II
As noted, the Court of Appeals rested its decision that the jury was not impartial on this Court’s decision in Irvin v. Dowd, supra. That decision, a leading one at the time, held that adverse pretrial publicity can create such a presumption of prejudice in a community that the jurors’ claims that they can be impartial should not be believed. The Court in Irvin reviewed a number of factors in determining whether the totality of the circumstances raised such a presumption. The Court noted, however, that the trial court’s findings of impartiality might be overturned only for “manifest error.” 366 U. S., at 723. The Court of Appeals in this case did not address this aspect of the Irvin decision. Moreover, the court below, in concentrating on the factors discussed at length in Irvin, failed to give adequate weight to other significant circumstances in this case. In Irvin, the Court observed that it was during the six or seven months immediately preceding trial that “a barrage of newspaper headlines, articles, cartoons and pictures was unleashed against [the defendant].” Id., at 725. In this case, the extensive adverse publicity and the community’s sense of outrage were at their height prior to Yount’s first trial in 1966. The jury selection for Yount’s second trial, at issue here, did not occur until four years later, at a time when prejudicial publicity was greatly diminished and community sentiment had softened. In these circumstances, we hold that the trial court did not commit manifest error in finding that the jury as a whole was impartial.
The record reveals that in the year and a half from the reversal of the first conviction to the start of the second voir dire each of the two Clearfield County daily newspapers published an average of less than one article per month. App. 642a-657a; Record, Ex. P-l-v to P-l-kk, P-2. More important, many of these were extremely brief announcements of the trial dates and scheduling such as are common in rural newspapers. E. g., App. 653a-656a; Record, Ex. P-l-ff, P-l-ii, P-l-jj. The transcript of the voir dire contains numerous references to the sparse publicity and minimal public interest prior to the second trial. E. g., App. 43a, 98a, 100a; Tr. (Nov. 4, 1970) 27-28, 90, 191, 384, 771, 829, 1142. It is true that during the voir dire the newspapers published articles on an almost daily basis, but these too were purely factual articles generally discussing not the crime or prior prosecution, but the prolonged process of jury selection. App. 658a-671a. In short, the record of publicity in the months preceding, and at the time of, the second trial does not reveal the “barrage of inflammatory publicity immediately prior to trial,” Murphy v. Florida, 421 U. S. 794, 798 (1975), amounting to a “huge . . . wave of public passion,” Irvin, 366 U. S., at 728, that the Court found in Irvin.
The voir dire testimony revealed that this lapse in time had a profound effect on the community and, more important, on the jury, in softening or effacing opinion. Many veniremen, of course, simply had let the details of the case slip from their minds. E. g., App. 194a; Tr. 33, 284, 541-544, 991. In addition, while it is true that a number of jurors and veniremen testified that at one time they had held opinions, for many, time had weakened or eliminated any conviction they had had. See, e. g., App. 98a-100a (juror number 7), 128a (juror number 8); Tr. 384-385, 398-399, 831, 897 (semble), 1075-1076, 1144; see also App. 164a-166a (juror number 10). The same is true of the testimony of the jurors and veniremen who were seated late in the process and therefore were subjected to some of the articles and broadcasts disseminated daily during the voir dire: the record suggests that their passions had not been inflamed nor their thoughts biased by the publicity. E. g., id., at 176a-177a, 150a-151a; Tr. 771, 959, 1027.
That time soothes and erases is a perfectly natural phenomenon, familiar to all. See Irvin v. Dowd, 271 F. 2d 552, 561 (CA7 1959) (Duffy, J., dissenting) (A continuance should have been granted because “[t]he passage of time is a great healer,” and public prejudice might have “subsid[ed]”), rev’d, 366 U. S. 717 (1961); see also Murphy, supra, at 802; Beck v. Washington, 369 U. S. 541, 556 (1962). Not all members of the venire had put aside earlier prejudice, as the voir dire disclosed. They retained their fixed opinions, and were disqualified. But the testimony suggests that the voir dire resulted in selecting those who had forgotten or would need to be persuaded again.
The Court of Appeals below thought that the fact that the great majority of veniremen “remembered the case” showed that time had not served “to erase highly unfavorable publicity from the memory of [the] community.” 710 F. 2d, at 969. This conclusion, without more, is essentially irrelevant. The relevant question is not whether the community remembered the case, but whether the jurors at Yount’s trial had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant. Irvin, 366 U. S., at 723. It is not unusual that one’s recollection of the fact that a notorious crime was committed lingers long after the feelings of revulsion that create prejudice have passed. It would be fruitless to attempt to identify any particular lapse of time that in itself would distinguish the situation that existed in Irvin. But it is clear that the passage of time between a first and a second trial can be a highly relevant fact. In the circumstances of this case, we hold that it clearly rebuts any presumption of partiality or prejudice that existed at the time of the initial trial. There was fair, even abundant, support for the trial court’s findings that between the two trials of this case there had been “practically no publicity given to this matter through the news media,” and that there had not been “any great effect created by any publicity.” App. 268a, 265a.
HH 1 — H
Yount briefly argues here that juror Hrin, as well as the two alternates, were erroneously seated over his challenges for cause. Brief for Respondent 32. There is substantial doubt whether Yount properly raised in his petition for ha-beas corpus the claim that the trial court erroneously denied his challenge for cause to juror Hrin. Compare 710 F. 2d, at 966, n. 18, with id., at 977, and n. 4 (Garth, J., concurring). And there is no evidence that the alternate jurors, who did not sit in judgment, actually talked with the other jurors during the 4-day trial. But Judge Garth in the court below based his concurrence on the view that Hrin would have required Yount to produce evidence to overcome his inclination to think the accused was guilty, and the majority of the panel thought that the 4-day association between the alternates and the other jurors “operate[d] to subvert the requirement that the jury’s verdict be based on evidence developed from the witness stand,” id., at 971, n. 25. Therefore, we will consider briefly the claims as to all three jurors.
It was the view of all three Court of Appeals judges that the question whether jurors have opinions that disqualify them is a mixed question of law and fact. See id., at 968, n. 20, 981. Thus, they concluded that the presumption of correctness due a state court’s factual findings under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d) does not apply. The opinions below relied for this proposition on Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S., at 723. Irvin addressed the partiality of the trial jury as a whole, a question we discuss in Part II, supra. We do not think its analysis can be extended to a federal habeas corpus case in which the partiality of an individual juror is placed in issue. That question is not one of mixed law and fact. Rather it is plainly one of historical fact: did a juror swear that he could set aside any opinion he might hold and decide the case on the evidence, and should the juror’s protestation of impartiality have been believed. Cf. Rushen v. Spain, 464 U. S. 114, 120 (1983) (state-court determination that juror’s deliberations were not biased by ex parte communications is a finding of fact).
There are good reasons to apply the statutory presumption of correctness to the trial court’s resolution of these questions. First, the determination has been made only after an often extended voir dire proceeding designed specifically to identify biased veniremen. It is fair to assume that the method we have relied on since the beginning, e. g., United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 49, 51 (No. 14,692g) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C. J.), usually identifies bias. Second, the determination is essentially one of credibility, and therefore largely one of demeanor. As we have said on numerous occasions, the trial court’s resolution of such questions is entitled, even on direct appeal, to “special deference.” E. g., Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U. S., Inc., 466 U. S. 485, 500 (1984). The respect paid such findings in a habeas proceeding certainly should be no less. See Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S. 422, 434-435 (1983).
Thus the question is whether there is fair support in the record for the state courts’ conclusion that the jurors here would be impartial. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(8). Thetesti-mony of each of the three challenged jurors is ambiguous and at times contradictory. This is not unusual on voir dire examination, particularly in a highly publicized criminal case. It is well to remember that the lay persons on the panel may never have been subjected to the type of leading questions and cross-examination tactics that frequently are employed, and that were evident in this case. Prospective jurors represent a cross section of the community, and their education and experience vary widely. Also, unlike witnesses, prospective jurors have had no briefing by lawyers prior to taking the stand. Jurors thus cannot be expected invariably to express themselves carefully or even consistently. Every trial judge understands this, and under our system it is that judge who is best situated to determine competency to serve impartially. The trial judge properly may choose to believe those statements that were the most fully articulated or that appeared to have been least influenced by leading.
The voir dire examination of juror Hrin was carefully scrutinized by the state courts and the Federal District Court, as he was challenged for cause and was a member of the jury that convicted the defendant. We think that the trial judge’s decision to seat Hrin, despite early ambiguity in his testimony, was confirmed after he initially denied the challenge. Defense counsel sought and obtained permission to resume cross-examination. In response to a question whether Hrin could set his opinion aside before entering the jury box or would need evidence to change his mind, the juror clearly and forthrightly stated: “I think I could enter it [the jury box] with a very open mind. I think I could . . . very easily. To say this is a requirement for some of the things you have to do every day.” App. 89a. After this categorical answer, defense counsel did not renew their challenge for cause. Similarly, in the case of alternate juror Pyott, we cannot fault the trial judge for crediting her earliest testimony, in which she said that she could put her opinion aside “[i]f [she] had to,” rather than the later testimony in which defense counsel persuaded her that logically she would need evidence to discard any opinion she might have. Id., at 246a, 250a-252a. Alternate juror Chincharick’s testimony is the most ambiguous, as he appears simply to have answered “yes” to almost any question put to him. It is here that the federal court’s deference must operate, for while the cold record arouses some concern, only the trial judge could tell which of these answers was said with the greatest comprehension and certainty.
IV
We conclude that the voir dire testimony and the record of publicity do not reveal the kind of “wave of public passion” that would have made a fair trial unlikely by the jury that was empaneled as a whole. We also conclude that the ambiguity in the testimony of the cited jurors who were challenged for cause is insufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness owed to the trial court’s findings. We therefore reverse.
It is so ordered.
Justice Marshall took no part in the decision of this case.
The Court of Appeals rejected as without fair support in the record the trial court’s conclusion that there was practically no publicity given to the ease between the first and second trials. See 710 F. 2d 956, 969, n. 21 (1983). The federal court suggested that the record on habeas of the publicity after the first trial and during the second was more complete than the record considered by the trial court. Ibid.
The Court of Appeals also suggested that the trial court’s view that there was little talk in public concerning the second trial was undermined by the voir dire testimony that there had been public discussion of the case, particularly in the last weeks before retrial. Id., at 969, n. 22. The court discounted, as of limited significance, the trial court’s point that few spectators had attended the trial, since Yount did not allege prejudice arising from the “ ‘circus atmosphere’ ” in the courtroom. Ibid.
One hundred twenty-five of the original 292 veniremen were excused because they had not been chosen properly. Four others were dismissed for cause before they were questioned on the case.
The Court of Appeals noted that in Irvin 8 of 12 jurors had formed opinions of guilt.
Judge Stern wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he suggested that the “constitutional standard which for 175 years has guided the lower courts” in this area be rejected. 710 F. 2d, at 972. Rather than hinge disqualification of a juror on whether he has a fixed opinion of guilt that he cannot lay aside, Judge Stern would bar any juror who admitted any opinion as to guilt. Moreover, no jury could be empaneled where more than 25% of the veniremen state that they held an opinion concerning the defendant’s guilt. This would raise such doubts as to the sincerity of those who claimed no opinion as to suggest concealed bias, Judge Stern wrote.
Judge Garth thought Irvin was distinguishable, because there “the trial court (which itself questioned the jurors challenged for cause) did not engage in a searching and thorough voir dire.” 710 F. 2d, at 979. Rather, it merely credited the jurors’ subjective opinions that each could render an impartial verdict notwithstanding his or her opinion. Judge Garth also noted that Yount challenged for cause only three of the actual jurors. In Irvin, the defendant challenged each of his 12 jurors for cause. Irvin v. Dowd, 359 U. S. 394, 398 (1959).
Judge Garth stated that whether juror Hrin was unconstitutionally biased was a mixed question of law and fact under Irvin. 710 F. 2d, at 981. He therefore did not apply the presumption of correctness that is applicable to the factual findings of a state court in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d).
The Court of Appeals appears to have thought that two statements in Irvin — that a federal court must “independently evaluate” the voir dire testimony, and that the question of juror partiality is a mixed question of law and fact, 366 U. S., at 723 — meant that there is no presumption of correctness owed to the trial court’s finding that a jury as a whole is impartial. We note that Irvin was decided five years before Congress added to the habeas corpus statute an explicit presumption of correctness for state-court factual findings, see Pub. L. 89-711, 80 Stat. 1105-1106, and two years before this Court’s opinion in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293 (1963), provided the guidelines that were later codified. It may be that there is little practical difference between the Irvin “manifest error” standard and the “fairly supported by the record” standard of the amended ha-beas statute. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). In any case, we do not think the habeas standard is any less stringent. Since we uphold the state court’s findings in this case under Irvin’s “manifest error” standard, we do not need to determine whether the subsequent development of the law of ha-beas corpus might have required a different analysis or result in that case.
The testimony of juror number 7, Martin Karetski, during examination by defense counsel is illustrative:
“Q. You have heard the matter discussed over the years?
“A. In the past few years I haven’t heard too much about it.
“Q. In 1966 when the matter came up before you knew about it then? “A. Yes sir.
“Q. And just recently when this matter was coming up again, I presume?
“A. What I have read in the paper again.'
“Q. And you have heard other people discuss it?
“A. Not too many so far.
“Q. You have heard other people express opinions about it?
“A. Not too many of those so far too.
“Q. Back around ’66, did you?
“A. Yes in’66.
“Q. ... I assume you had an opinion as to [Mr. Yount’s] guilt or innocence [in 1966]?
“A. I had an opinion yes.
“Q. Do you have a opinion today as to his guilt or innocence?
“A. It’s been a long time ago and I’m not sure now. It was in the paper he plead [sic] not guilty. “Q. Let me ask you this then. In case you do have an opinion, could you wipe it out of your mind — erase it out of your mind before you would take a seat in the jury box and hear whatever evidence you might hear? “A. As it is right now I have no opinion now — four or five years ago I probably did but right now I don’t. “Q. What happened Mr. Karetski, between then and now to eliminate that opinion if you can tell me? “A. Well, as far as I’m concerned there wasn’t much in the paper about it and it sort of slipped away from thought.” App. 98a-100a.
Jurors were sequestered as they were chosen.
As noted, the voir dire in this case was particularly extensive. It took 10 days to pick 14 jurors from 292 veniremen. In Irvin it took 8 days to pick 14 jurors from 430 veniremen.
Contrary to Judge Garth’s surmise, 710 F. 2d, at 979, however, the voir dire interviews quoted in the petitioner’s brief in Irvin do not appear to be significantly less probing than those here. See Brief for Petitioner in Irvin v. Dowd, O. T. 1960, No. 41, pp. 18-59. It should also be noted that the voir dire in Irvin, like that here, was conducted largely by counsel for each side, rather than the judge. The only significant difference in the procedures followed here and in Irvin is that the veniremen here were brought into the courtroom alone for questioning, while it appears that those in Irvin were questioned in front of all those remaining in the panel. This is not an insubstantial distinction, as the Court suggested in Irvin, 366 U. S., at 728, but we do not find it controlling.
In Murphy v. Florida, 421 U. S. 794 (1975), the defendant — widely known as “Murph the Surf” — relied heavily on Irvin. The record of damaging publicity preceding his trial was at least as extreme as that in this case. Nevertheless, we found the record there distinguishable from Irvin. We noted that the extensive publication of news articles about Murphy largely had ceased some seven months before the jury was selected. 421 U. S., at 802. Murphy involved a lapse in publicity prior to the defendant’s first trial; there was no second trial in that case.
There are, of course, factual and legal questions to be considered in deciding whether a juror is qualified. The constitutional standard that a juror is impartial only if he can lay aside his opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court is a question of federal law, see Irvin, 366 U. S., at 723; whether a juror can in fact do that is a determination to which habeas courts owe special deference, see Rushen, 464 U. S., at 120. Cf. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S. 422, 431-432 (1983) (similar analysis as to whether a guilty plea was voluntary). See also Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145,156 (1879) (whether a juror should be disqualified is a question involving both a legal standard and findings of fact; the latter may be set aside only for manifest error).
The dissent misreads the Court’s opinion in Reynolds v. United States. Post, at 1050-1052, and nn. 6 and 7. Reynolds was decided some 87 years before the presumption of correctness for factual findings was added to 28 U. S. C. § 2254. The Court clearly did not attach the same significance to the phrase “a question of mixed law and fact” that we do today under modern habeas law. It recognized that juror-disqualification questions may raise both a question of law — whether the correct standard was applied — and a question of fact. Whether an opinion expressed by a juror was such as to meet the legal standard for disqualification was viewed as a question of fact as to which deference was due to the trial court’s determination. This is apparent from the language quoted by the dissent, which notes that while the question is one of “mixed law and fact,” it is “to be tried, as far as the facts are concerned, like any other issue of that character, upon the evidence. The finding of the trial court upon that issue ought not to be set aside by a reviewing court, unless the error is manifest.” 98 U. S., at 156. Plainly, factual findings were to be considered separately from the legal standard applied, and deference was due to those findings. This is also apparent from the following passage:
“[T]he manner of the juror while testifying is oftentimes more indicative of the real character of his opinion than his words. That is seen below, but cannot always be spread upon the record. Care should, therefore, be taken in the reviewing court not to reverse the ruling below upon such a question of fact, except in a clear case.” Id., at 156-157 (emphasis added). Taken together, these passages plainly show that the “character of [a juror’s] opinion” was considered a question of fact. Contrary to the suggestion of the dissent, post, at 1050, n. 6, the factual question was not limited to whether the juror was telling the truth, but included discovering the “real character” of any opinion held. Deference was due to the trial court’s conclusions on that question.
Accord, In re Application of National Broadcasting Co., 209 U. S. App. D. C. 354, 362, 653 F. 2d 609, 617 (1981) (“[V]oir dire has long been recognized as an effective method of rooting out such bias, especially when conducted in a careful and thoroughgoing manner”); United States v. Duncan, 598 F. 2d 839, 865 (CA4), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 871 (1979); Calley v. Callaway, 519 F. 2d 184, 209, n. 45 (CA5 1975) (en banc) (citing cases), cert, denied sub nom. Calley v. Hoffman, 425 U. S. 911 (1976). But cf. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U. S. 209, 222, and n. (1982) (O’CONNOR, J., concurring) (describing situations in which state procedures are inadequate to uncover bias); Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 723 (1963) (same).
Demeanor plays a fundamental role not only in determining juror credibility, but also in simply understanding what a potential juror is saying. Any complicated voir dire calls upon lay persons to think and express themselves in unfamiliar terms, as a reading of any transcript of such a proceeding will reveal. Demeanor, inflection, the flow of the questions and answers can make confused and conflicting utterances comprehensible.
stay, petition, or motion granted affirmed (includes modified) reversed reversed and remanded vacated and remanded affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded vacated petition denied or appeal dismissed certification to or from a lower court no disposition