Document: 380 U.S. 24 85 S.Ct. 783 13 L.Ed.2d 630 Mortimer SINGER, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 42. Argued Nov. 18, 1964. Decided March 1, 1965. Sidney Dorfman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for petitioner. Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Rule 23(a) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure provides: 2 'Cases required to be tried by jury shall so unless defendant waives a trial in writing with approval court and consent government.' Petitioner challenges permissibility this rule, arguing that Constitution gives federal criminal case right waive whenever he believes such action his best interest, regardless whether prosecution are willing acquiesce waiver. 3 was charged district 30 infractions mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1958 ed.). The gist indictment used mails dupe amateur songwriters into sending him money marketing their songs. On opening day petitioner offered '(f)or purpose shortening trial.'1 approve waiver, but Government refused give its consent. subsequently convicted on 29 counts Court Appeals Ninth Circuit affirmed. We granted certiorari, 377 903, 84 1168, 12 175. 4 Petitioner's argument is has not only an unconditional constitutional right, guaranteed Art. III, 2, Sixth Amendment,2 jury, also correlative have decided judge alone if considers advantage. He claims at common law refuse preceded demand one, both before time our adopted defendants country had trial. Although does terms option between different modes trial, argues provisions relating protection accused. further urges since can other rights without Government, must necessarily similar Constitution's guarantee fair safeguard themselves against possible prejudice insisting alone. Turning attention 23(a), Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth Amendments violated placing conditions ability jury. 5 examined petitioner's arguments find them merit. no evidence recognized choose instances waiver found certain colonies prior adoption Constitution, they were isolated occurring pursuant colonial 'constitutions' or statutes clear departures from law. There indication colonists considered equal importance one. Having neither confers nor recognizes cases alone, we conclude sets forth reasonable procedure governing attempted waivers trials. I. 6 English Common Law. origin England altogether clear. At inception it alternative one older methods proof—trial compurgation, ordeal battle. I Holdsworth, A History Law 326 (7th ed. 1956). Soon after thirteenth Century become principal institution cases, Jenks, Short 52 (5th 1938); yet, even procedures battle passed disuse, technically retained them. Before could subjected 'consent' required, Englishmen period concept somewhat own. Statute Westminster I, 1275, Edw. c. 12, which described who submit as 'refus(ing) stand Land,' marks beginning horrendous practice known peine forte et dure recalcitrant tortured until death 'consented' 7 It significant entitled method trial,3 1772 officially abolished England. By statute enacted year, Geo. 3, 20, stood mute when felony deemed pleaded guilty. Not 1827, long did provide & 8 4, 28, those mute. Even plead merely provided would subject formal Thus, late 1827 gave mode closest came 'implied confession,' briefly Hawkins, Pleas Crown, 31 (6th 1787), accused minor offenses explicitly admit guilt threw King's mercy expressed willingness small fine. Despite heard discharge wanting. Griswold, Historical Development Waiver Jury Trial Cases, 20 Va.L.Rev. 655, 660 (1934). cannot seriously argued obscure insignificant procedure, having applicability serious offenses, establishes proposition all cases. contrary, '(b)y intrinsic fairness contrasted modes, favor crown judges, (trial jury) grew fast regarded regular common-law always fixed.' Thayer, Preliminary Treatise Evidence 60 (1898). 9 Colonial Experience. most freely permitted matter course Massachusetts Maryland. 'First constitution' Massachusetts—The Body Liberties 1641—contained Liberty XXIX following: 10 'In actions law, liberty plaintiff defendant, mutual consent, will Bench Jury, where upon just reason otherwise determined. like persons cases.' 11 should noted XXIX's language change 'where determined.' Moreover, drafting administering departure Grinnell, To What Extent Right Optional Cases Massachusetts? Mass. L.Q. 5, 7, 23—25 (1923). Several cited, least up 1692, waived bench. See supra, 27—29; 661—664. However, 1692 on, light increasing hostility stressed alternate Instead being settled part jurisprudence Constitutional Convention, forgotten Massachusetts: 'With state mind then existing among colonists, presumably nobody bothered about question any one's wanting General concerned man's asked it, thought danger. 'Body Liberties' never been printed nineteen original official manuscript copies doubtless lost forgotten, 'bar' (which begin develop 18th century) century people, probably general knowledge expressly optional character established 'fundamental' period.'4 appears early days Maryland's colonization judges sitting Bond, Maryland Practice Trying Judges Alone, Without Juries, A.B.A.J. 699, 700 (1925). But submitted par chose hear case, evidenced 1793 submission admission crime (analogous confession' under law) insofar render person submitting liable costs prosecution. In 1809, declared encouraged suffer increased liability doing. 1823, however, major began first caused some surprise sharp comment legal circles. 701. 14 Other examples cited New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Jersey Pennsylvania.5 664—667. said these believed try They way show there recognition defendant's instead Indeed, difficult understand why Article III Amendment drafted option. 15 Its Judicial Interpretation. proceedings Convention little insight what meant direction 'Trial Crimes * Jury.' clause clearly intended protect oppression see Farrand, Records 101 (James Wilson), 221—222 (Luther Martin) (1911); but, permitting choice widespread, surprising framers apparently designated exclusive determining guilt, Federalist, 83 (Alexander Hamilton) (Cooke 1961); IV Elliot's Debates 145, 171 Iredell) (2d 1876); 521 (Edmund Pendleton) 1876). 16 immediately following claim insist United States v. Gibert, 25 Fed. Cas. p. 1287 (No. 15204) (C.C.D.Mass.1834), Story, while circuit, indicated view made permissible Similar views judges. Ex parte McClusky, 40 F. 71, 74—75 (C.C.D.Ark.1889) (by implication); Taylor, 470, 471 (C.C.D.Kan.1882) (dictum).6 17 necessary holding Thompson State Utah, 170 343, 620, 42 L.Ed. 1061, Schick States, 195 65, 826, 49 99, requirement petty These two decisions construed lower courts establishing rule imperative. Coates 290 134 (C.A.4th Cir.1923); Blair 241 217, 230 (C.A.9th Cir.1917); Frank 192 864, 867—868 (C.A.6th Cir.1911) (dictum); Low 169 86 Cir. 1909); Dickinson 159 801 (C.A.1st Cir.1908), cert. denied, 213 92, 485, 53 711. issue finally presented Patton 281 276, 50 253, 74 854. certified Eighth Circuit. wording question, id., 287, 254, significant: 19 'After commencement twelve men charging crime, punishment may involve penitentiary sentence, juror becomes incapacitated unable proceed work juror, government through representative charge proceeding finality jurors, thus verdict men?' stated agreed jurors. jurors foreign therefore, forms 'in substance amount(ed) same thing.' Id., 290, 255. concluded might 'forego election.' 298, 258. spoke 'privilege,' 'imperative requirement,' ibid., remarked principally benefit accused, 312, 263. Nevertheless, conscious precise Circuit, opinion, 312— 313 263, carefully chosen dispelled notion absolute alone: 21 'Not jealously preserved, maintenance factfinding body place traditions, that, effective, counsel sanction had, addition express intelligent defendant. And duty regard discharged mere rote, sound advised discretion, eye avoid unreasonable undue essential elements thereof, caution degree dealt increase gravity.' 22 Adams ex rel. McCann, 317 269, 277 278, 63 236, 241, 87 268, reaffirmed position taken 'one dispense express, consents, approved responsible judgment court.' II. 23 federally can, held Patton, remains effectiveness conditioned prosecuting attorney judge. ordinarily carry opposite right. For example, although circumstances, public compel private Kobli, 172 F.2d 919, 924 (C.A.3d 1949) committed, transfer another district, Platt Minnesota Mining Mfg. Co., 376 240, 245, 769, 772, 674; Kersten 161 337, 339 (C.A.10th 1947), 331 851, 67 1744, 91 1859; confronted witnesses him, suggested thereby stipulation. accepted procedural regulations: 7(b) followed prosecuted indictment; describes information pending defendant; 44 deals counsel. 'normal preferable disposing issues fact As devised determine weaknesses potential misuse. itself surrounded safeguards make possible—for venue changed well-grounded fear prejudice. 21(a) Procedure, prospective voir dire examination, challenge cause, peremptory challenge, 24(a) (b). 26 emphasis how bald undergo contrary due process. concerning impartial impediment conditioning when, either refuses result simply jury—the very thing guarantees him. adversary system proper litigant, legitimate interest seeing conviction warranted tribunal regards likely produce result. This Government's litigant analogy 24(b) rules, permits peremptorily. 27 aware variety trials Some contingent prosecutor, e.g., California (Cal.Const. 7), Indiana (Ind.Ann.Stat. 9—1803 (1956 Repl. vol.), Alldredge Indiana, 239 Ind. 256, 156 N.E.2d 888 (1959)), Virginia (Va.Const. 8, Va.Code Ann. 19.1—192 (1950 Boaze Commonwealth, 165 Va. 786, 183 S.E. 263 (1936)). Others, giving prosecutor voice, prerequisite Georgia (Ga.Code 102—106 (1955), Palmer State, Ga. 661, S.E.2d 295 (1943)), Washington (Wash.Rev.Code 10.01.060 (1963 Supp.)). Still others solely informed decision, Connecticut (Conn.Gen.Stat.Rev. 54—82 (1958)), Illinois (Ill.Ann.Stat. 38, 103—6 (Smith-Hurd 1964), Spegal, Ill.2d 211, 125 468, 51 A.L.R.2d 1337 (1955)). rules alternatives recommended present Court, Orfield, 1962 Duke L.J. 29, 69—72; promulgated recommended; Congress 3771 28 upholding validity reiterate sentiment Berger 78, 88, 55 629, 633, 79 1314, ordinary party controversy, 'servant law' 'twofold aim escape innocence suffer.' role framed, confident continue invoked attorneys. Because confidence integrity require articulate reasons demanding proffered Nor assume prosecutors ignoble purpose. need circumstances compelling insistence denial arise situations 'passion, feeling'7 factor impossible unlikely forgo than save time, is. raised questions involving instructions alleged misconduct attorney. record adequately instructed. event, timely objection and, absence plain error, correctly affirmed court. Similarly merit specifications during reveals misconduct, any, purposeful flagrant, court's admonitions seem well designed cure whatever prejudicial impact prosecutor's remarks case. Affirmed. R. 17. 'The Crimes, except Impeachment, Jury; committed; committed within Place Places directed.' prosecutions, enjoy speedy wherein previously ascertained nature cause accusation; him; compulsory process obtaining Witnesses favor, Assistance Counsel defence.' many hardy rather because inherent distrust desire prevent forfeiture lands resultant hardships descendants. Cf. 326. 33. Pennsylvania Proprietor Wilkins, Pennypacker's 88 (1892), 1685—1686, fornication over involved 10-pound is, authority construing own constitutions, generally clauses preserve took similarly limited ruled See, Wilson Ark. 601 (1855); Maine, Conn. (1858); People Smith, Mich. 193 (1861). determined prohibit Arnold Nebraska, 38 Neb. 752, 57 N.W. 378 (1894); re McQuown, Okl. 347, P. 689, L.R.A.,N.S., 1136 (1907); Battey, 32 R.I. 475, 80 A. Hirsch, Vt. 330, 100 877 (1917); Mays 82 550 (1886). interpreted constitutions say allowed. Holt, 90 N.C. 749 (1884); Williams Haynes Ohio St. 622 courts, course, permissible, enabling legislation. Warner Baer, 103 585, N.E. 786 (1921) (overruling supra); King, Okl.Cr. 46, 274 682 (1929). Hallinger Davis, 146 314, 105, 36 986, violate Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Brief, 24.

Category: 0