Changes

In ''Darden v. Wainwright'', 477 U.S. 168 (1986), the [[United States Supreme Court]] reinforced its rule of deference in reviewing trial court decisions to exclude jurors in [[death penalty]] cases due to their opposition to the [[death penalty]].  

In '''''Darden v. Wainwright''''', 477 U.S. 168 (1986), the [[United States Supreme Court]] reinforced its rule of deference in reviewing trial court decisions to exclude jurors in [[death penalty]] cases due to their opposition to the [[death penalty]].  

The State had challenged a potential juror, and the defense had not objected to his removal. Without further questioning from the trial court, the juror was excused. ''Id.'' at 178. The petitioner argued to the Supreme Court that the transcript of [[voir dire]] did not show that the removed juror was substantially impaired because the critical answer he had given was ambiguous. The Court rejected this argument. "Our inquiry does not end with a mechanical recitation of a single question and answer." ''Id.'' at 176.  

The State had challenged a potential juror, and the defense had not objected to his removal. Without further questioning from the trial court, the juror was excused. ''Id.'' at 178. The petitioner argued to the Supreme Court that the transcript of [[voir dire]] did not show that the removed juror was substantially impaired because the critical answer he had given was ambiguous. The Court rejected this argument. "Our inquiry does not end with a mechanical recitation of a single question and answer." ''Id.'' at 176.