Document: 441 U.S. 130 99 S.Ct. 1623 60 L.Ed.2d 96 Daniel BURCH et al., Petitioners,v.STATE OF LOUISIANA. No. 78-90. Argued Feb. 22, 1979. Decided April 17, Syllabus Held: A conviction by a nonunanimous six-person jury in state criminal trial for nonpetty offense, as contemplated provisions of the Louisiana Constitution and Code Criminal Procedure that permit five out six jurors, violates right an accused to guaranteed Sixth Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 134-139. (a) Lines must be drawn somewhere if substance is preserved, while this line-drawing process "cannot wholly satisfactory, it requires attaching different consequences events which, when they lie near line, actually differ very little," Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 145, 161, 88 1444, 1453, 20 491, offense only members presents threat preservation guarantee justifies requiring verdicts rendered such juries unanimous. Cf. Ballew Georgia, 435 223, 98 1029, 55 234. 137-138. (b) The near-uniform judgment those States utilizing six-member trials offenses verdict unanimous convict, provides useful guide delimiting line between practices are constitutionally permissible not. P. 138. (c) State's substantial interest reducing time expense associated with administration its system justice insufficient justification use juries. Any benefits might accrue from juries, compared unanimity, speculative, at best, and, more importantly, State has reduced size minimum number permitted Constitution, additional authorization sufficiently threatens constitutional principles establishing threshold any countervailing should yield. 138-139. 360 So.2d 831, reversed part, affirmed remanded. Jack Peebles, New Orleans, La., petitioners. Louise Korns, respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 provide cases which punishment imposed may confinement period excess months "shall tried before persons, whom concur render verdict."1 We granted certiorari decide whether these law rights Amendments.2 439 925, 307, 58 317 (1978). 2 Petitioners, individual corporation, were jointly charged two counts exhibition obscene motion pictures.3 Pursuant law, jury, found both petitioners guilty charged. poll after indicated had voted unanimously convict petitioner Wrestle, Inc.,4 5-1 Burch. Burch was sentenced consecutive 7-month prison terms, suspended, fined $1,000; Inc., $600 on each count. 3 Petitioners appealed their convictions Supreme Court where argued permitting violated persons Amendments.5 Though acknowledging issue "close," court held did not offend Constitution. 838 concluded none Court's decisions precluded jury. " 'If 75 percent concurrence (9/12) enough determined Johnson 406 356, 92 1620, 32 152 (1972), then 83 (5/6) ought within limits Johnson.' Ibid., quoting Hargrave, Declaration Rights 1974, 35 La.L.Rev. 1, 56 n. 300 (1974). And our recent decision 234 (1978), striking down Georgia allowing five-person cases, distinguishable view: 4 "[I]n Williams [v. Florida, 399 78, 90 1893, 26 446 (1970)] sufficient promote adequate group deliberation, insulate outside intimidation, representative cross-section community. These values, inadequate serve, necessarily defeated because jury's instead persons." So.2d, 838. 5 Since believed foreclosed decisions, stated preferred "indulg[e] presumption federal constitutionality afforded constitution." Ibid. 6 agree question presented "close" one. Nonetheless, we believe deprives his 7 Only relatively years consider several relating unanimity. 491 (1968), marked beginning involvement questions. "serious" "fundamental American scheme justice" essential due Amendment guarantees defendant case court, would require under Amendment. Id., 149, 158-159, S.Ct., 1447, 1452-1453.6 8 Two Terms later 86, 1898, (1970), 12 Florida violate defendants affording them panels comprised persons. After canvassing common-law development history right, 12-person requirement "a historical accident" there no indication Framers intended preserve features existed common law. 89-90, 1899-1900. Thus freed strictly considerations, turned examine function particular feature performs relation purposes trial. 99-100, 1905-1906. purpose noted Duncan, prevent government oppression providing "safeguard against corrupt or overzealous prosecutor compliant, biased, eccentric judge." U.S., 156, 1451. Given purpose, observed lies "interposition accuser commonsense laymen, community participation shared responsibility results group's determination guilt innocence." 100, 1906. could fulfilled, believed, so long free fair possibility cross section represented it. concluded, however, "little reason think goals meaningful sense less likely achieved numbers six, than 12—particularly unanimity retained." (emphasis added).7 9 similar analysis led us conclude 1972 need satisfy requirements, even though been rule Thus, Apodaca Oregon, 404, 1628, 184 upheld statute 10 certain noncapital cases.8 In terms role safeguard oppression, plurality perceived difference required act votes 2. 411, 1633. Nor viewed contributing materially exercise common-sense necessary precondition effective application represent 410, 412, 1632, 1633.9 Last Term, considered passes scrutiny, explicitly reserved Florida. See 91 28, 1901 28. Court, separate opinions, While readily admitting altogether easy justify, least Members raised doubts fairness proceeding proper functioning warrant drawing six. 239, 1038 (opinion Blackmun, J.); id., 245-246, 1042 Powell, J.).10 11 thus have permits members, but 6. supra; supra. approved involving supra (10-2); (1972) (9-3). questioned here. Rather, intersection concerning As Ballew, do pretend ability discern priori bright below jurors participating manner prior cases. 231-232, 1034-1035 see supra, 1905. But having already departed requirements trial, inevitable lines preserved. Scott Illinois, 440 367, 372, 1158, 1161, 59 383 (1979); Baldwin York, 66, 72-73, 1886, 1890-1891, 437 (1970) (plurality opinion); 1453. Even concedes much. Tr. Oral Arg. 26-27. This process, "although essential, cannot little." 1453; 1890-1891 opinion). However, much same reasons five-member threatened lead now unanimous.11 buttressed view current States. It appears utilize offenses, two, including also allow verdicts.12 Nation 70-72, 1888-1890 District Columbia Clawans, 617, 628, 57 660, 663, 81 L.Ed. 843 (1937). 13 seeks justify sixperson basis "considerable time" savings claims trying manner. asserts system, juror deliberation shortened hung reduced. Brief Respondent 14. Undoubtedly, justice. prevail First, record, verdict, best. More establishment 14 affirming is, therefore, reversed, affirmed. remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 15 ordered. 16 STEVENS, concurring. 17 I changed views expressed Marks United States, 430 188, 198, 97 990, 996, 51 260; Smith 431 291, 311-321, 1756, 1769-1774, 52 324; Splawn California, 595, 602-605, 1987, 1992-1993, 606, authority vote modify ground fairly subsumed petition certiorari.* That Because addressed resolution question, join 18 BRENNAN, STEWART MARSHALL join, concurring part dissenting part. 19 For set forth 380, 1643, (Douglas, J., dissenting), 395, 1650 (Brennan, 397, 1626 (Stewart, 399, 1651 (Marshall, dissenting) 414, 1634, dissenting). Burch's violation dissent disposition insofar authorizes retrial affirms Inc. convicted charges exhibiting allegedly pictures La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 14:106(A)(3) (West 1974). my overbroad therefore facially unconstitutional. Paris Adult Theatre Slaton, 413 49, 73, 93 2628, 2642, 37 (1973) Accordingly, reverse declare unconstitutionality precludes either alleged violation. 246, 1042, (1978) Brennan, J.). Article I, provides: "A capital shall twelve all verdict. hard labor ten without full voir dire examination prospective challenge peremptorily. challenges fixed Except knowingly intelligently waive jury." 779(A), La.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. Supp. 1979), states: misdemeanor fine hundred dollars imprisonment verdict." "In prosecutions, enjoy speedy public impartial district wherein crime committed, previously ascertained informed nature cause accusation; confronted witnesses him; compulsory obtaining favor; Assistance Counsel defense." fundamental applicable virtue At petitioners' maximum penalty prescribed obscenity $1,000, parish one year, both. 14:106(G) lacks standing See, e. g., Duke Power Co. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 59, 72, 2620, 2630, 595 (1978); Arlington Heights Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 252, 260-261, 555, 561, 50 450 (1977); Raines, 362 21, 80 519, 522, 524 (1960). does accused's denied Although raise claim, disposed claim. 837 properly Jersey Portash, 450, 455, 1292, 1295, 501 Jenkins 418 153, 157, 94 2750, 2753, 41 642 (1974); Raley Ohio, 423, 436, 79 1257, 1265, 1344 (1959). 159, 1452, reaffirmed long-established "petty offenses" 69, 1888, White "no can deemed 'petty' authorized." 229, 1033, authorized months, 3, entitled neither reliable factfinder, advantageous defendant, nor variety viewpoints 100-102, 1905-1907. decided day Oregon 9-3 Due Process Clause failure reasonable-doubt standard. Unlike Apodaca, involved DeStefano Woods, 392 631, 2093, 1308 applied retroactively, implicate through Fourteenth. 358, 1622. Powell concurred 366, 1635. He although precedent trials, incorporate elements 10-2. 369-380, 1637-1642. fewer fair-cross-section 245, 1042. joining holds Amendments contain persons). We, course, intimate members. Of 25 apparently some Oklahoma appear La.Const., Art. 17; Crim.Proc.Ann., 779(A) 1979); Okl.Const., 2, 19; Okl.Stat., Tit. 601 (1971); Houchin State, Okl.Cr. 268, 262 P.2d 173 (1953); Pierce 76, 248 633 (1952). Idaho allows, require, circumstances; rules Const., 7; Rule Crim.Proc. 31(a). * 23(1)(c) ("Only questions therein will court"); Mazer Stein, 347 201, 208, 6, 74 460, 465, 630; General Talking Pictures Corp. Western Electric Co., 304 175, 177-179, 849, 850-852, 82 1273.

Category: 0