# Williams v. Florida

Williams v. Florida 399 U.S. 78 (1970) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, argued on 4 March 1970 and decided on 22 June 1970. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not entitle a defendant in a criminal trial to refuse to provide details of his alibi witnesses to the prosecution, and that the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to have 12 members. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Burger

## Concurrence/Dissent

    Black

## Dissenting Opinion

    Marshall
United States Supreme Court
399 U.S. 78
Williams v. Florida
Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
No. 927 Argued: March 4, 1970. --- Decided: June 22, 1970
Florida has a rule of criminal procedure requiring a defendant who intends to rely on an alibi to disclose to the prosecution the names of his alibi witnesses; the prosecution must in turn disclose to the defense the names of witnesses to rebut the alibi. Failure to comply can result in exclusion of alibi evidence at trial (except for the defendant's own testimony) or, in the case of the State, exclusion of the rebuttal evidence. Petitioner, who was charged with robbery, complied with the rule after failing to be relieved of its requirements. His pretrial motion to impanel a 12-man jury, instead of the six-man jury Florida law provides for noncapital cases, was denied. At trial the State used a deposition of petitioner's alibi witness to impeach the witness. Petitioner was convicted and the appellate court affirmed. Petitioner claims that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated, on the ground that the notice-of-alibi rule required him to furnish the State with information useful in convicting him, and that his Sixth Amendment right was violated on the ground that the six-man jury deprived him of the right to "trial by jury" under the Sixth Amendment.
1. Florida's notice-of-alibi rule does not violate the Fifth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 80-86.
(a) This discovery rule is designed to enhance the search for truth in criminal trials by giving both the accused and the State opportunity to investigate certain facts crucial to the issue of guilt or innocence and comports with requirements for due process and a fair trial. Pp. 81-82.
(b) The rule at most accelerated the timing of petitioner's disclosure of an alibi defense and thus did not violate the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. Pp. 82-86.
2. The constitutional guarantee of a trial by jury does not require that jury membership be fixed at 12, a historically accidental figure. Although accepted at common law, the Framers did not explicitly intend to forever codify as a constitutional requirement a feature not essential to the Sixth Amendment's purpose of inter- [p79] posing between the defendant and the prosecution the commonsense judgment of his peers. Pp. 86-103.
224 So. 2d 406, affirmed.
Richard Kanner argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of Florida, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Earl Faircloth, Attorney General, and Ronald W. Sabo, Assistant Attorney General.
Jack Greenberg and Michael Meltsner filed a brief for Virgil Jenkins as amicus curiae urging reversal.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse