Irvin v. Dowd

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was denied due process because pervasive and inflammatory pretrial publicity created a community-wide prejudice reflected in the jury selection. The Court concluded that the trial court's finding of juror impartiality did not meet constitutional standards where two-thirds of the seated jurors acknowledged an opinion that the petitioner was guilty. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded, allowing Indiana a reasonable opportunity to retry the petitioner.

Holdings

1. A criminal defendant is denied the impartial jury and fair trial guaranteed by due process when the surrounding publicity and voir dire record demonstrate that seated jurors possess such strong and pervasive preconceived opinions of guilt that they cannot reasonably be expected to decide the case solely on the evidence presented at trial.
2. The Indiana statute limiting changes of venue from the county was not facially unconstitutional because, under Indiana precedent, courts had a duty to order an additional transfer when the totality of the surrounding facts showed that an impartial jury could not be obtained.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner was denied due process by being tried before a jury allegedly biased by pervasive and inflammatory pretrial publicity.
2. Whether the Indiana statute limiting a defendant to one change of venue from the county was unconstitutional as applied to petitioner's circumstances.
3. Whether the federal courts properly evaluated the impartiality of the jurors selected in light of the voir dire record.

Disposition

vacated