## Facts

- Willie Lloyd Turner, a Black man, robbed a Virginia jewelry store and fatally shot the store’s white proprietor.
- Turner was indicted for capital murder based on killing during the course of a robbery.
- During voir dire, Turner requested that prospective jurors be informed of the victim’s race and questioned specifically about racial prejudice.
- The trial judge denied the request and asked only general questions about juror impartiality.
- A jury convicted Turner and, after a separate capital sentencing hearing, recommended the death penalty; the judge imposed a death sentence.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the conviction and sentence; federal habeas relief was denied by the district court and affirmed by the Fourth Circuit.

## Issues

1. In a capital case involving an interracial crime, whether the Constitution entitles the defendant, upon request, to have prospective jurors informed of the victim’s race and questioned specifically about racial bias.
2. If such questioning is required, whether the proper remedy is to vacate only the death sentence or also the guilt conviction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit in part and remanded.
- The Court held that a capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled, upon request, to have prospective jurors informed of the victim’s race and questioned on racial prejudice.
- The Court concluded that the refusal to permit race-focused voir dire created an unacceptable risk that racial bias affected the capital sentencing determination.
- The Court vacated Turner’s death sentence and required a new capital sentencing proceeding, but left the guilt conviction undisturbed.
- The trial court retains discretion over the form and number of questions; the constitutional entitlement depends on a specific request by the defendant.

## Legal Principles

- In a capital case involving interracial violence, specific voir dire on racial bias is constitutionally required when requested by the defendant.
- The constitutional concern is heightened at capital sentencing because the jury’s broad discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances increases the opportunity for impermissible considerations to affect the decision.
- The constitutional requirement is limited and procedural: the trial judge controls the manner of inquiry, and failure to request such questioning at trial forfeits later complaint about its absence.
- When the constitutionally required inquiry is denied, the appropriate remedy is a new sentencing proceeding where the unfairness risk concerns sentencing rather than guilt.

## Conclusion

Because a capital sentencing jury’s discretion and the severity of the death penalty create a serious risk that racial prejudice may affect sentencing in interracial crimes, the Constitution requires, upon request, voir dire questioning directed to racial bias; denial of that request requires vacating the death sentence and conducting a new sentencing hearing, while leaving the conviction intact.


Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (1986)