Case Citator › Witherspoon v. Illinois

Witherspoon v. Illinois

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
391 U.S. 510
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
173 of 173
Citing cases (total)
4,805
Treatment dates
1969–1985
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Witherspoon v. Illinois was overruled in part when the Supreme Court replaced its footnote 21 test for excluding prospective capital jurors. All 173 flagged citations have been read, and the two confirmed treatments are listed below.
More on how this was screened

Wainwright v. Witt retained Witherspoon's essential balance while modifying that test. The Supreme Court of Missouri also criticized Witherspoon's reasoning.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

4,805 later cases cite Witherspoon v. Illinois; 173 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Witherspoon v. Illinois?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Supreme Court of Missouri criticized Witherspoon as ambiguous and as taking a long step toward destruction of the traditional concept of trial by an impartial jury, while holding the decision inapplicable on the record before it.

    Duisen v. State · Supreme Court of Missouri · filed

    We hold that no member of the venire was excluded from selection on the panel from which the trial jury was ultimately chosen for the reasons charged in movant’s *692principal point; that the record does not support movant’s contentions and he has, therefore, failed to sustain his burden of-proof. Rule 27.26(f). Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, an ambiguous decision which takes a long step toward “ * * * the destruction of our ancient judicial and constitutional concept of trial by an impartial jury * * *, ”7 is not applicable to the facts in this case. We recognize but need not discuss, because not necessary to our decision, the valid distinctions to be made between the Illinois statute8 providing for challenges for cause of jurors who have conscientious scruples against capital punishment, referred to in Witherspoon, and the Missouri statute 9 on the same general subj ect.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court replaced Witherspoon's footnote 21 test with a substantial-impairment standard, while retaining its essential balance.

    Wainwright v. Witt · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We adhere to the essential balance struck by the Witherspoon decision rendered in 1968, if not to the version of it presented by today’s dissent; we simply modify the test stated in Witherspoon’s footnote 21 to hold that the State may exclude from capital sentencing juries that “class” of veniremen whose views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties in accordance with their instructions or their oaths.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Witherspoon v. Illinois and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace