Steven Richard Mulkey, Petitioner v. Alabama

The Supreme Court is being asked to review whether a death-penalty defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated during jury selection. The petition says the trial judge publicly sanctioned and jailed one prospective juror in front of the rest of the jury pool, then did not ask whether other potential jurors were intimidated or affected.

The case is pending on a certiorari (the Court's decision whether to hear a case) petition, and oral argument has not been scheduled.

If potential jurors think they could be punished for speaking up, they may give less honest answers during jury selection. That could matter greatly in death-penalty cases, where courts rely on candid answers before choosing a jury.

It asks whether a death-penalty defendant's jury-selection process was unfair after a judge publicly sanctioned and jailed a prospective juror. It also questions the lack of follow-up about whether other jurors were intimidated or affected.

It could shape how judges handle jury pools after a public punishment in court. In a capital case, jurors may be less willing to speak honestly.

The Supreme Court must decide whether to grant certiorari (hear the case). No oral argument is scheduled, and no decision window is available yet.