InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Smith, Correctional Superintendent v. Phillips

The Court held that the fact that one of the jurors in a murder trial had applied to work for the prosecutor did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to a fair jury trial.

455 U.S. 209 · No. 80-1082 · 1981 term · Burger Court

Decided Jan 25, 1982 · argued Nov 9, 1981

Due process · Due process: impartial decision maker

Majority opinion: William Rehnquist

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Reversed. Smith, Correctional Superintendent won.

What this ruling means

Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.

Smith, Correctional Superintendent was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning bias in jury selection for criminal trials. The Court held that the fact that one of the jurors in a murder trial had applied to work for the prosecutor did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to a fair jury trial. The Court also held that the prosecution's failure to disclose this job application until after the trial was over did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to due process of law under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the lower courts to grant habeas corpus relief to the respondent, William R. Phillips, who had been convicted of murder in a New York trial court. In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "Due process does not require a new trial every time a juror has been placed in a compromising situation."

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1981 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallBrennanBlackmunStevensWhitePowellO'ConnorBurgerRehnquist

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Smith, Correctional SuperintendentState (New York)
Respondent
PhillipsPerson convicted of crime
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jan 25, 1982DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: reversed. Smith, Correctional Superintendent won.
  2. Nov 9, 1981ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

13 other argued cases since 1946 on due process: impartial decision maker, newest first.

  1. Williams v. Pennsylvania579 U.S. 1Jun 9, 2016 · 579 U.S. 1Due process5–36–3 band

  2. Hugh M. Caperton, et al. v. A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., et al.556 U.S. 868Jun 8, 2009 · 556 U.S. 868Due process5–45–4 band

  3. John Patrick Liteky, Charles Joseph Liteky and Roy Lawrence Bourgeois v. United States510 U.S. 540Mar 7, 1994 · 510 U.S. 540Due process9–0Unanimous band
  4. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.486 U.S. 847Jun 17, 1988 · 486 U.S. 847Due process5–45–4 band
  5. Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie et al.475 U.S. 813Apr 22, 1986 · 475 U.S. 813Due process8–0Unanimous band

  6. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. McClure et al.456 U.S. 188Apr 20, 1982 · 456 U.S. 188Due process9–0Unanimous band
  7. United States v. Raddatz447 U.S. 667Jun 23, 1980 · 447 U.S. 667Due process5–45–4 band
  8. Marshall, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Jerrico, Inc.446 U.S. 238Apr 28, 1980 · 446 U.S. 238Due process9–0Unanimous band
  9. Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 et al. v. Hortonville Education Assn. et al.426 U.S. 482Jun 17, 1976 · 426 U.S. 482Due process6–36–3 band
  10. Withrow et al. v. Larkin421 U.S. 35Apr 16, 1975 · 421 U.S. 35Due process9–0Unanimous band
  11. Taylor v. Hayes, Judge418 U.S. 488Jun 26, 1974 · 418 U.S. 488Due process8–18–1 band
  12. Ward v. Village of Monroeville409 U.S. 57Nov 14, 1972 · 409 U.S. 57Due process7–27–2 band
  13. In re Murchison et al.349 U.S. 133May 16, 1955 · 349 U.S. 133Due process6–36–3 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.