Supreme Court Declined Alabama Murder Case Appeal
The justices left in place a death sentence for Steven Richard Mulkey after rejecting a juror impartiality claim.
Updated on Oct. 5, 2026 in Criminal Justice
Live Poll
Should judges be strictly prohibited from conducting proceedings that might intimidate or frighten potential jurors?
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal in the case of Steven Richard Mulkey, who was sentenced to death for a 2018 double murder. Mulkey had argued that his trial was unfair because a judge arrested a potential juror for tardiness in front of the jury pool.
Why it matters
The ruling maintains a death sentence while highlighting concerns about judicial conduct in the courtroom. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that judges should avoid intimidating collateral proceedings that could influence potential jurors.
The Supreme Court rejected the petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving the death sentence affirmed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in place. The conviction stems from the 2018 killing of two elderly motel owners.
The players
Steven Richard Mulkey
He is the defendant convicted and sentenced to death for a 2018 double murder in Alabama.
Sonia Sotomayor
She is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States who issued a statement regarding the proceedings.
The details
During jury selection, the trial judge ordered a potential juror arrested for lateness in the presence of the jury pool. Mulkey contended this created a climate of fear, noting that two other potential jurors later expressed reluctance to share their views due to the judge's actions.
Timeline
The crimes occurred in 2018.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on October 5, 2026.
Legal Context
This case sits at the intersection of judicial discretion and the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. It mirrors ongoing debates about whether courtroom atmosphere and administrative discipline can inadvertently influence a jury's ability to act as a neutral arbiter.
The court's decision establishes that the judge's actions did not meet the standard for a reversal of the conviction. This reinforces existing standards for how trial courts manage attendance and decorum within the judicial process in Alabama.
The takeaway
The court's decision underscores the difficulty of overturning trial outcomes based on claims of juror intimidation without explicit evidence of prejudice. Litigants must ensure objections are properly preserved during voir dire to maintain their right to appeal.
Further reading
For more background on court procedures in the state, visit Alabama Criminal Justice.
Live Poll
Should judges be strictly prohibited from conducting proceedings that might intimidate or frighten potential jurors?
