in law, a trial jury pronounced fit to decide a case involving the death penalty. The fitness of jurors to serve in death-punishable cases depends on their views on capital punishment. For example, jurors absolutely opposed to the death penalty generally are disqualified from service in capital cases. The precise views that disqualify a juror are a highly debated issue.

Under the long-standing practice of death qualification, a potential juror who—during the preliminary questioning to ensure against bias—stated any opposition to the death penalty was excused from serving. In 1969 this doctrine was altered by the Supreme Court of the United States in Witherspoon v. Illinois, in which the court ruled that philosophical opposition to capital punishment did not disqualify a juror automatically, as a person might oppose capital punishment generally yet believe it is his duty to uphold the laws as they are until changed. The court reasoned that a jury deciding between life imprisonment and execution is expressing the conscience of the community, and that no jury could do this impartially if persons opposing the death penalty were systematically excluded. The court's decision did not change the rule that persons indicating their absolute refusal to impose the death penalty at all are to be excluded from juries. Those indicating that their views on capital punishment would preclude them from rendering an impartial verdict on the defendant's guilt or innocence (i.e., whether he actually did the criminal act, rather than what punishment he should receive) were also excluded.

In many countries the death qualification of juries has been eliminated by the abolition of capital punishment.