Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Witherspoon v. Illinois et al., 1968 — 389 U.S. 1035 · caselaw · US
Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
Witherspoon v. Illinois et al.
389 U.S. 1035·Supreme Court of the United States·1968
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 344,
Misc.
Witherspoon v. Illinois et al.
Elmer Gertz on the motion for Illinois Division, American Civil Liberties Union.
Albert E. Jenner, Jr., Thomas P. Sullivan and John C. Tucker for petitioner.
William G. Clark, Attorney General, and John J. O’Toole and Donald J. Veverka, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of Illinois, and John J. Stamos, Elmer C. Kissane and Joel M. Flaum, for Woods, respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of Illinois Division, American Civil Liberties Union, for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted and case transferred to appellate docket, limited to the following question: Whether the operation of the Illinois statute providing that the State could challenge for cause all prospective jurors who were opposed to, or had conscientious scruples against, capital punishment deprived the petitioner of a jury which fairly represented a cross section of the community, and assured the State of a jury whose members were partial to the prosecution on the issue of guilt or innocence, in violation of the petitioner’s rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.