Keep in mind that the original trial does not necessarily say anything about the sentencing...That is, the jurors simply make a judgement of guilt or innocence regarding a particular charge.  The sentencing phase comes later, and the same jury that decided the guilt or innocence of the defendant then decides whether the defendant should be executed.  Both decisions must be unanimous.

In 1984, Claudia Cowan, William Thompson, and Phoebe Ellsworth looked at the effects of death-qualified juries on the quality of deliberation of the juries and of the eventual outcomes.*  What they found was astounding.

In a number of different studies, the death-qualified jurors were significantly more likely to return a guilty verdict than juries that included even a single "Witherspoon excludable" juror (so named after the Supreme Court case Witherspoon v. Illinois, 1968).  In addition, the overall quality of deliberations was much more poor (see actual article for more information on judgement criteria for quality of deliberations).  There was less disagreement, which means that the jury was much more homogenous, less discussion, and less exchange of distinct viewpoints.

Cowen et al. conclude that the bottom line is that when people are excluded from a jury on the basis of their views on capital punishment, the jury can no longer be considered fair and diverse.
 

back to Zach Dillon's  Hurricane Carter homepage
 
* Footnote: For a more comprehensive explanation of this study, see:
Cowan, Claudia L. et al. "The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation."  Law and Human Behavior. 1984 Jun Vol 8(1-2) 53-79.