Document: 435 U.S. 223 98 S.Ct. 1029 55 L.Ed.2d 234 Claude D. BALLEW, Petitioner,v.State of GEORGIA. No. 76-761. Argued Nov. 1, 1977. Decided March 21, 1978. Syllabus Petitioner, who was charged with committing a misdemeanor, tried before five-person jury pursuant to Georgia law, and convicted. Though criminal trial by six-person is permissible under Williams v. Florida, 399 78, 90 1893, 26 446, petitioner maintains that less than six unconstitutional, contention the courts rejected. Held: The judgment reversed case remanded. Pp. 229-245; 245; 245-246. 138 Ga.App. 530, 227 S.E.2d 65, Mr. Justice BLACKMUN, joined STEVENS, concluded persons substantially threatens Sixth Fourteenth Amendment guarantees. has presented no persuasive argument contrary. Neither financial benefit nor more dubious time-saving claimed factor sufficient significance offset substantial threat constitutional guarantees reducing from five would create. 229-245. WHITE not satisfy fair-cross-section requirement Amendments. P. 245. POWELL, whom Chief REHNQUIST joined, that, though line between five- six-member juries difficult justify, be drawn somewhere if substance in cases preserved. Michael Clutter, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner, pro hac vice special leave Court. Leonard W. Rhodes, respondent. BLACKMUN announced Court delivered an opinion which STEVENS joined. 1 This presents issue whethe state only deprives accused right guaranteed him Amendments.1 Our resolution requires application principles enunciated 446 (1970), where use upheld against similar attack. 2 * In November 1973 Davis Ballew manager Paris Adult Theatre at 320 Peachtree Street, Ga. On 9 two investigators Fulton County Solicitor General's office viewed theater motion picture film entitled "Behind Green Door." Record 46-48, 90. After they had seen film, obtained warrant its seizure, returned theater, once again, seized it. Id., 48-50, 91. Petitioner cashier were arrested. Investigators on 26, entirety, secured still another warrant, 27 again second copy film. 53-55. 3 September 14, 1974, two-count misdemeanor accusation 4 "distributing obscene materials violation Code Section 26-2101 said did, knowing nature thereof, exhibit 'Behind Door' contained indecent scenes . ." App. 4-6.2 5 brought Criminal County.3 been selected sworn, moved court impanel 12 persons. 37-38.4 That court, however, Ga.Const., Art. 6, § 16, ¶ codified as Ga.Code 2-5101 (1975), 1890-1891 Ga.Laws, 278, pp. 937-938, 1935 38, p. 498.5 contended obscenity trial, constitutionally inadequate assess contemporary standards community. 13, 38. He also argued Amendments required least members cases. 6 12-person overruled, went conclusion 5-person impaneled. At deliberated 38 minutes verdict guilty both counts accusation. 205-208. imposed sentence one year $1,000 fine each count, periods incarceration run concurrently suspended upon payment fines. 16-17, 209. subsequent hearing, denied amended new trial.6 7 took appeal Appeals State Georgia. There he argued: First, evidence insufficient. Second, committed several First errors, namely, matter law obscene, instructions incorrectly explained standard scienter, definition obscenity, scope comm nity standards. Third, seizures films illegal. Fourth, convictions placed double jeopardy because shown picture. Fifth, five-member deprived his jury. 222-224. 8 rejected petitioner's contentions. 65 (1976). independently reviewed entirety held it "hard core pornography" "obscene fact." 532-533, S.E.2d, 67-68. support jury's possessed requisite scienter. As advertised movie, sold tickets, present when exhibited, pressed button allowed entrance seating area, locked door after arrest. evidence, according met constructive-knowledge 26-2101. found errors instructions, issuance warrants, or presence convictions. consideration 5-person-jury issue, noted Florida established minimum number jurors. Absent holding this inadequate, considered itself bound Sanders State, 586, 216 838 cert. denied, 424 931, 96 1145, 47 340 (1976), constitutionality upheld. cited earlier McIntyre 190 872, 11 (1940), same general effect but without elaboration. Supreme certiorari. 26. 10 petition certiorari here, raised three issues: unconstitutionality jury; sufficiency scienter constructive, rather actual, knowledge contents film; vel non. We granted 429 1071, 97 807, 50 789 (1977). Because we now hold does guarantee Amendment, applied States through Fourteenth, do reach other issues. II all nonpetty Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 159-162, 88 1444, 1452-1454, 20 491 (1968). "trial fundamental American scheme justice." 149, S.Ct., 1447. attaches maximum penalty violating 26-2101, existed time alleged offenses, exceeded months' imprisonment.7 See Baldwin New York, 66, 68-69, 1886, 1887-1888, 437 (1970) (opinion White, J.). U.S., 100, 1905, reaffirmed "purpose Duncan, prevent oppression Government. 'Providing peers gave inestimable safeguard aga nst corrupt overzealous prosecutor compliant, biased, eccentric judge.' [391 U.S.,] 156, 1451." Apodaca Oregon, 406 404, 410, 92 1628, 1632, 32 184 (1972) purpose attained participation community determinations guilt common sense laymen who, jurors, consider case. 1905. 13 these functions could fulfilled members. Court's some length, id., 86-90, 1898-1900, common-law included historical accident, "unrelated great purposes rise first place." 89-90, 1900. assumed compelled set side history function jury.8 90-92, 1900-1901. Rather requiring members, then, mandated size promote group deliberation, insulate outside intimidation, provide representative cross-section Although recognizing 1970 little empirical research evaluated performance, reliability verdicts diminished panels. Nor did anticipate significant differences result, including frequency "hung" juries. 101-102, nn. 48, 1906-1907. reduction threaten exclusion any particular class roles, concern character suffer decrease seemed "an unrealistic one." 102, 1907. consequence, violate III 14 When permitted size—or, put way, unconstitutional—it expressly reserved ruling whether smaller passed scrutiny. 91 n. 28, 1901.9 Johnson 356, 365, -366, 1620, 1626, 152 (concurring opinion). refused speculate so-called "slippery slope" become too steep. face now, two-fold question further make grade dangerous, is, inhibits functioning institution degree, and, so, interest counterbalances justifies disruption so preserve constitutionality. 15 Colgrove Battin, 413 93 2448, 37 522 (1973) (where Seventh civil case), generated quantity scholarly work size.10 These writings draw identify bright below jurors able Williams. hand, raise questions about wisdom six. examine concerns: 16 recent data suggest progressively are likely foster effective deliberation. point, decline leads inaccurate fact-finding incorrect facts. Generally, positive correlation exists quality performance productivity.11 A variety explanations have offered conclusion. Several particularly applicable setting. group, critical contributions necessary solution given problem.12 most take notes, see Forston, Sense Non-Sense: Jury Trial Communication, 1975 B.Y.U.L.Rev. 601, 631-633, memory important accurate deliberations. size, remember pieces argument.13 Furthermore, overcome biases obtain result.14 individual decisionmaking compared, groups performed better prejudices individuals frequently counterbalanced, objectivity resulted. Groups exhibited increased motivation self-criticism. All advantages, except, perhaps, self-motivation, tend diminish diminishes.15 complex problems laden value choices, benefits should retained. particular, counterbalancing various facts 17 doubts accuracy results achieved Statistical studies risk convicting innocent person (Type I error) rises diminishes.16 increases panel,17 optimal can interaction risks. Nagel Neef minimizing vary importance attached types mistakes. weighing Type error times II, perhaps unreasonable assumption, eight. below, weighted sum enlarging conviction defendants.18 18 Another doubt arises increasing inconsistency decreases. Saks "more type fosters consistency, greater will proportion select correct (i. e., same) fewer 'errors' made." 86-87. From mock trials undergraduates former computed percentage "correct" decisions rendered 6-person student experiment, reached 83% time; panels 69% time. former-juror study 71% 57% groups. Ibid. Working statistics described H. Kalven & Zeisel, 460 (1966), tested average propensity juries, likelihood convict defendant.19 They half propensities varied points. Half varying 30 points, difference real terms.20 Lempert compromise over views their phenomenon fulfillment function. averaging occurs respect damages amounts. relates numbers lesser offenses.21 And predicted compromises consistent larger employed. For example, expected extreme 4% cases, while 16%.22 post-Williams studies, therefore, consistency 19 deliberation smaller, variance amounts imbalance detriment side, defense. Both Zeisel hung decreased size. cut half—from 5% 2.4% members.23 emphasized generally hang one, remaining unconvinced guilt.24 Also, theory suggests minority adhere position supporting argument.25 setting tendency demonstrated following figures: If viewpoint shared 10% community, 28.2% 12-member may representation, 53.1% 6-member none. Thirty-four percent 11% two.26 dim nish six, even member two. chance accordingly. what just foretells decisionmaking, representation repeatedly meaningful cannot minorities identifiable service. "It part tradition instruments public justice body truly community." Smith Texas, 311 128, 130, 61 164, 165, 85 L.Ed. 84 (1940). elements "contravenes very idea composed 'the equals whose rights summoned determine.' " Carter Comm'n, 396 320, 330, 518, 524, 24 549 quoting Strauder West Virginia, 100 303, 308, 25 664 (1880). fail represent adequately opportunity appropriate Thus, constitutes randomly among 89% two.27 Further erect additional barriers representation. 21 authors identified methodological tending mask operation juries.28 judicial system handles many clear decisionmakers analyses One disagree 14% cases.29 Disparities, appear small percentages. Nationwide, percentages large those greatest value. close, innocence defendant readily apparent, properly insure evaluation factfinding.30 22 Studies aggregate masking case-by-case authors, examined judge-jury disagreement. judges plaintiffs 59%, insignificant difference. Yet comparison revealed disagreement 22% 63, 656. casts compared trials.31 investigator hypothesis awards might say figures supported conclusion, closer view reveals variation panels, i. deviation $58,335 $24,834 juries.32 Again, averages masked must evaluating performance. IV 23 While to, reaffirm our made since decided 1970, lead us conclude seriously impaired, admit pretend discern five. But assembled justice, promotes possibly biased causes untoward verdicts, prevents representing communities, attains significance. here offend interests. reliance (1972), proposition previously approved misplaced. challenged Louisiana statute felony less-than-unanimous verdicts. prosecution garner nine votes trial. due process diluting reasonable-doubt standard. 363, 1625. discussion heard serious equal protection challenge. 12-per panel deprival unanimous 5-member used merely classification invidious. 364, then Court, rule argues charge Williams, reasons, adequate problem significantly crime. Only concerning petty crimes, deprivation liberty minimal, possible substantial. misdemeanors Ann. concurrent sentences imprisonment, year, fines totaling $2,000 imposed. there need imposition direction chosen label offense felony.33 judged Florida. retention unanimity solve problem. ability perform return decision speak engaged arguments, represented entire Despite requirement, "the having interposed himself officers prosecute judge equally well served" panel. 411, 1633 submits represents arbitrary class. agree violates Equal Protection Clause discriminating basis race improper classification. (1970); outlined above o membership decreases lack suggest, like Not racial threatened such circumstances, majority attitude positions misconstrued misapplied Even establish discrimination claim Clause, constitute combined, create 28 relieve doubts. relies affect Tr. Oral Arg. 27. study; eventually concludes: 29 "Larger (size twelve) preferable (six). produce longer deliberations, communication, far possibly, (consistency)." 107. Far relieving concerns, supports 31 Methodological purport bolster Georgia's position. Michigan criticized elsewhere.34 laboratory apparent clarity plaintiff tort suit; potential doubted experiment students tested, video tape presented.35 statistical review actual erroneously aggregated outcomes. It failed account changes procedure initiated members.36 study, employed rape, none verdict.37 None reports, convinces degree trials. V With creating guarantees, reduction. find advantage 33 utilize primarily administrative reasons. Savings costs justify reductions.38 inancial substantial; mainly daily allowances hear cases.39 asserted saving clear. Pabst voir dire directed veniremen group.40 Total diminish, delays backlogs improved little.41 point made, course, four save little. reduce slightly allowances, minimal. gained 5. Perhaps explains why States, Virginia,42 reduced certain Other content more.43 short justification charges VI 34 reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 35 ordered. 36 concurring. join BLACKMUN'S opinion, altered expressed Marks United 430 188, 990, 51 260. WHITE, concurring judgment. 39 Agreeing hence fair Amendments, concur reversal. 40 THE CHIEF JUSTICE join, 41 judgment, authority involves grave fairness. indicates, fiveand d awn 42 agree, every feature practice federal courts. 414, 1634, (Powell, J., concurring). today assumes full incorporation contrary my Apodaca, reservations wisdom—as necessity—of heavy numerology derived studies. Moreover, neither validity methodology subjected traditional testing mechanisms adversary process.* relied unexamined findings interested system. 43 reasons 44 BRENNAN, STEWART MARSHALL join. 45 insofar holds require contain However, continue belief overbroad therefore facially unconstitutional. Georgia, (1976) (dissent denial certiorari). Slaton, 49, 73, 2628, 2665, (Brennan, dissenting). reads: "In prosecutions, shall enjoy speedy impartial district wherein crime committed, ascertained informed cause accusation; confronted witnesses him; compulsory obtaining favor, Assistance Counsel defence." Amendment's provision Amendment. "Distributing materials" read: "(a) commits distributing sells, lends, rents, leases, gives, advertises, publishes, exhibits otherwise disseminates material description, offers possesses intent do: Provided, word 'knowing' herein deemed either constructive subject matter; reasonable prudent man notice suspect material. "(b) Material whole, applying standards, predominant prurient interest, shameful morbid nudity, sex excretion, utterly redeeming social if, addition, goes beyond customary limits candor describing matters. Ga.Laws 204, 498, (Supp.1977), entirely superseded version. name changed, January 2, 1977, merger Civil into tribunal known County. 1976 1004, 3023. asked, alternative, transferred Superior jurisdiction 4, 2-3901 (1975); Nobles 81 229, 58 496 (1950). impaneled 12. (1975). choice bringing violated 12-13. transfer denied. states part: "The [in Atlanta] information accusation, conform rules governing Courts, except consist five, stricken alternately twelve. (4) strikes (3) compose jury." changed Atlanta intimated oral 25. Effective 24, 1976, 1003, 3019. Irrespective order convict, vote. Ball 162, 70 S.E. 888 (1911). illegally defective warrant; statute, Sixth, Amendments; jeopardy, Fifth 2-108 insufficient verdicts; excluded testimony defense expert witness; court's instruction improperly shifted burden proof 19-21. imprisonment exceed months $1,000, both. 27-2506 (1972). change effected offenses punishable "a high aggravated nature," months, $5,000, 27-2506(c) (Supp.1977). Thompson Utah, 170 343, 349, 620, 622, 1061 (1898), later Patton 281 276, 288, 253, 254, 74 854 (1930); Rassmussen 197 516, 519, 528, 514, 515, 49 862 (1905); Maxwell Dow, 176 581, 448, 450, 597 (1900), requirement. footnote said: "We occasion determine 'jury,' minimum." Respondent picks up last phrase absolute literalness argues: "If minimum, minimum. between." Brief 4; 24. We, accept stating "above" implication, constitutional. Instead, muster reserving E. g., M. Saks, Verdicts (1977) (hereinafter Saks); Bogue Fritz, Six-Man Jury, S.D.L.Rev. 285 (1972); Davis, Kerr, Atkin, Holt, Mech, Decision Processes 6- 12-Person Mock Juries Assigned Unanimous Two-Thirds Majority Rules, J. Personality Soc.Psych. Diamond, Experiment Reanalyzed, U.Mich.J.L.Reform 520 (1974); Friedman, Jury: Criteria Convictions, Size Errors, 26-2 Am.Stat. (Apr. 1972) Friedman); Institute Judicial Administration, Comparison Six- Twelve-Member Jersey Courts Lempert, Uncovering "Nondiscernible" Differences: Empirical Research Jury-Size Cases, 73 Mich.L.Rev. 643 (1975) Lempert); Neef, Deductive Modeling Determine Optimum Fraction Required Convict, Wash.U.L.Q. 933 Neef); Law Revision Commission, Six-Member (1971); Pabst, Costs versus Twelve-Man Juries, Wm. Mary L.Rev. 326 (here- inafter Pabst); Ignorance Science Is No Excuse, (Nov.-Dec. 1974); Thompson, Six Will Do!, Twelve Just, Then Were None: Diminution Federal U.Chi.L.Rev. 710 (1971) Zeisel); Waning A.B.A.J., 367 "Convincing Evidence" Member (1974) Diamond); Note, Effect Probability Conviction: An Evaluation Case W.Res.L.Rev. 529 Res.); Juries: Study Results, 671 (1973); Decision-Making Processes, 712 (1973). Some parties. 7-9; 26-27. them carefully basis, besides hunch, fulfill Without examination how actually work, understand Powell somewhere." note shrink 100-102, 105, 1905-1907, 1908, jury, 158-160, 2453-2454, (1973), Rehnquist. Two researchers summarized variable. conditions superior productivity. Thomas Fink, Effects Group Size, 60 Psych. Bull. 371, 373 (1963), 685. 77 et seq., Faust, Individual Problem-Solving, 59 Ab. Soc. 68, 71 (1959), 685 686. seq.; Kelley Thibaut, Problem Solving, Handbook 68-69 (2d ed., G. Lindzey Anderson 1969) Thibaut). 687-688, citing Barnlund, Comparative Individual, Majority, Judgment, 55, (1959); Thibaut 67. supra 58-59. Friedman; Neef. 945. 946-948, 956, 975. Friedman appearance study. appeared, not. reduced, increase, said, corresponding error. 23. 952, 971, juror acquit, designated figure .677. words, case, 67.7% vote convict. .677, ranged .579 .775. .530 .830. 971-972. 680. Accord, 718; Res. 547. 720; accord, 676. 89-90. 674-677; 719. Asch, Pressure Modification Distortion Judgments Dynamics Theory, 189, 195-197 1960), 673. 669, 677. Ibid.; 648-653; 934-937; supra, 10, 19; Diamond 283-291; 535. 648-653. 34, infra. author deliberations showing sets sizes single concerned automobile accident turned speeding. precluded recovery contributory negligence. Of plaintiff. led conclude: overwhelmingly favored .. overpowering bias makes irrelevant. probably hav arrived verdict. Hence, impermissible." 287. U.Mich.L.Reform (1974). 159 15, 2454, 2454. Ziesel 289-290. ignored occurred members: mediation board, encouraged settlements, introduced, discovery insurance policy taken effect. 43. rely aspect Nevertheless, refusal distinguish felonies misdemeanors. community's define apply local Miller California, 2607, 419 harassment overreaching armed robbery. fact labeled robbery felony. (a results), U.Mich.J.L.Ref. using trial), 43-46, 286-290. advanced argument. 45. 43-44; 288-290. al., 7, 49-51. throughout $4 million annually. 1974). calculated man-hours 41.9% 326, 328 327; supra. 27-28 3-4 Do, 12, 327-328. Virginia 19.2-262(2) permits provided Colo. Rule Crim.Proc. Fla.Stat.Ann. 913.10 (West 1973); Ky.Rev.Stat. 29.015 Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., ch. 218 27A (West, Supp. 1977). stipulation Ark.Stat.Ann. 43-1901 (1977); Cal.Civ.Proc. 194 1954). Indian Rights Act, 202, 82 Stat. 77, U.S.C. 1302(10), provides acknowledges, disagreeing "methodological problems" "mask juries." Ante, 237. ante, 242-243.

Category: 0