Supreme Court snubs Alabama jury impartiality case

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Steven Richard Mulkey, an Alabama man sentenced to death for a 2018 double murder, after a trial judge ordered a prospective juror arrested and held in contempt for arriving late during jury selection. Other prospective jurors subsequently asked whether they too could be jailed for their answers, with one juror asking the judge directly, “Will I be charged or thrown in jail?”

Mulkey argued the judge's conduct tainted the jury pool and denied him an impartial jury, but Alabama countered that he never objected during jury selection itself and raised the issue only on appeal. The Court declined review, finding no plain error, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote separately that the judge's conduct had a 'profoundly negative impact' on the jury pool and that judges should avoid any collateral proceedings that might frighten jurors.

Sotomayor noted that two jurors questioned individually expressed fear of punishment for their views, and that it is unknown how many others in the full pool felt the same but were never asked. The jury ultimately convicted Mulkey and unanimously recommended death.

The full dispatch is available from the source below.