Document: 406 U.S. 404 92 S.Ct. 1628 32 L.Ed.2d 184 Robert APODACA et al., Petitioners,v.OREGON. No. 69—5046. Argued March 1, 1971. Reargued Jan. 10, 1972. Decided May 22, Syllabus Petitioners, who were found guilty of committing felonies, by less-than-unanimous jury verdicts, which are permitted under Oregon law in noncapital cases, claim that their convictions, upheld on appeal, contravene right to trial the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 410—414, 369—380. 1 Or.App. 483, 462 P.2d 691, Mr. Justice WHITE, joined THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr, BLACKMUN REHNQUIST, concluded that: 1. Amendment guarantee a trial, made applicable States (Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 145, 88 .s.Ct. 1444, 20 491), does not require jury's vote be unanimous. 410—412. 2 (a) Amendment's essential purpose 'interpos(ing) between accused his accuser . commonsense group laymen' representative cross section community, Williams Florida, 399 78, 100, 90 1893, 1906, 26 446, served despite absence unanimity requirement. 410—411. 3 (b) Petitioners' argument requires order effectuate reasonable-doubt standard otherwise mandated due process requirements without merit since proof beyond reasonable doubt at all. 411—412. 4 2. Jury racial minorities systematically excluded from jury-selection process; even when minority members jury, it follow views will just as rationally considered other would case rule. 412—414. POWELL 5 Although basis history precedent mandates federal Due Process Clause Amendment, while requiring provide trials for serious crimes, incorporate all elements within meaning unanimity. Oregon's 'ten twelve' rule violative process. 369—377. 6 Nor provision inconsistent with requirement drawn community majority remains duty consider viewpoint course deliberation, usual safeguards exist minimize possibility irresponsibility. 378—380. 7 Richard B. Sobol, Washington D.C., petitioners. 8 Jacob Tanzer, Salem, Or., respondent. 9 WHITE announced Court an opinion BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST joined. 10 Apodaca, Henry Morgan Cooper, Jr., James Arnold Madden convicted respectively assault deadly weapon, burglary dwelling, grand larceny before separate juries, returned verdicts. cases Apodaca was 11—1, Cooper 10—2, minimum requisite sustaining conviction.1 After convictions had been affirmed Appeals, 691 (1969), review denied Supreme Oregon, three sought this upon conviction crime violates criminal specified Fourteenth. See Duncan 491 (1968). We granted certiroari claim, 400 901, 91 27 138 (1970), we now find merit. 11 In 446 occasion related issue: whether juries consist 12 men. considering 12-man functions performs contemporary society, constitutional stature. reach same conclusion today regard * Like men, arose during Middle Ages2 become accepted feature common-law 18th century.3 But, observed Williams, 'the relevant casts considerable easy assumption4 if given existed common 1789, then necessarily preserved Constitution.' Id., 92—93, S.Ct., 1902. most salient fact scanty reviewed full that, introduced Madison House Representatives, proposed provided 13 'by impartial freeholders vicinage, conviction, challenge, accustomed requisites .' Annals Cong. 435 (1789). 14 passed little alteration, proposal ran into opposition Senate, particularly vicinage version. draft considerably altered form, conference committee appointed. That refused accept only original language but also alternate suggestion conferees defined possessing requisites.' Letter Edmund Pendleton, Sept. 23, Writings 424 (G. Hunt ed. 1904). Instead, ultimately emerged Congress 15 State district wherein shall have committed, previously ascertained 16 As one can draw conflicting inferences legislative history. One possible inference eliminated references 'accustomed requisites' because those thought already implicit very concept jury. A contrary explanation, more plausible, deletion intended some substantive effect. U.S., 96—97, 1903—1904. Surely absolutely clear after specify precisely Constitution, Framers explicitly rejected instead left such specification future. must accordingly what meant 'jury' determine commonly associated constitutionally required. And, our inability divine intent Framers' they determining turn than purely historical considerations. II 17 Our inquiry focus function society. Cf. supra, 99 1905. said Duncan, prevent oppression Government providing 'safeguard against corrupt or overzealous prosecutor complaint, biased, eccentric judge.' 156, 1451. 'Given purpose, obviously lies interposition laymen 1906. unanimity, however, materially contribute exercise judgment. come long consists opportunity deliberate, free outside attempts intimidation, question defendant's guilt. terms perceive no difference required act unanimously convict acquit votes two one. Requiring produce hung situations where nonunanimous acquit.5 But either case, interest defendant having peers interposed himself officers prosecute judge him equally well served. III 18 Petitioners nevertheless argue serves purposes continued operation system. Their principal contention 'jury trial' mandatory virtue should held unanimous verdict give substance Clause. re Winship, 397 358, 363—364, 1068, 1072, 25 368 (1970). 19 quite sure, itself has never cases. developed separately both verdict. noted Winship did crystallize country until Constitution adopted. id., 361, 1070.6 And burden required, purported support Amendment. effect thus founders rooted, effect, Johnson 356, 1620, 152. IV 21 cite accurately line decisions upholding principle panels reflect community. See, e.g., Whitus Georgia, 385 545, 87 643, 599 (1967); Smith Texas, 311 128, 61 164, 85 L.Ed. 84 (1940); Norris Alabama, 294 587, 55 579, 79 1074 (1935); Strauder West Virginia, 100 303, 664 (1880). They contend necessary precondition effective application cross-section requirement, permitting less verdicts make occur acquiescence 22 There flaws argument. petitioners' assumption every distinct voice represented any case. All forbids, systematic exclusion identifiable segments panels; may not, example, challenge makeup merely race prove excluded. Swain 380 202, 208—209, 824, 829, 759 (1965); Cassell 339 282, 286—287, 70 629, 631, 94 839 (1950); Akins 325 398, 403—404, 65 1276, 1279, 89 1692 (1945); Ruthenberg United States, 245 480, 38 168, 62 414 (1918). No group, short, block convictions; participate overall legal processes guilt innocence determined. 23 cannot second assumption—that groups, adequately represent groups simply outvoted final result. present deliberations, heard. assume refuse weigh evidence decision rational grounds, do obtain deprive man liberty prejudice presenting favor acquittal. notion disregard its instructions cast based rather evidence. 24 affirm Appeals Oregon. It so ordered. Judgment STEWART, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 28 491, squarely wholly state Unless overruled, therefore, here embraces answer clearly 'yes,' my Brother cogently demonstrated part concurring reviews almost century adjudication.* 29 Until today, universally understood element trial. Andres 333 740, 748, 68 880, 884, 1055; Patton 281 276, 288, 50 253, 254, 74 854; Hawaii Mankichi, 190 197, 211—212, 787, 788, 47 1016; Maxwell Dow, 176 581, 586, 448, 450, 44 597; Thompson Utah, 170 343, 351, 353, 620, 623, 42 1061; cf. J. Story, Commentaries § 1779 n. (5th 1891). 30 I these settled precedents reverse us. Ore.Const., Art. I, 11, reads part: 'In prosecutions, public county offense committed; provided, person, capital consent judge, elect waive tried court alone, election writing; circuit ten render guilty, save except first degree murder, verdict, ..' origins shrouded obscurity, although latter half 14th became W. Holdsworth, History English Law 318 (1956); Thayer, Development, Harv.L.Rev. (pts. 2) 249, 295, 296 (1892). At least four explanations might development theory compensate lack rules insuring received fair L. Orfield, Criminal Procedure Arrest Appeal 347—351 (1947); Haralson, Unanimous Verdicts Cases, Miss.L.J. 185, 191 (1950). out practice ancient mode compurgation adding number compurgators party supporting position; technique afforcement abandoned, side jurors remained. P. Devlin, Trial 48—49 Ryan, Less Trials, 58 J.Crim.L.C. & P.S. 211, 213 (1967). third early unlike personally knowledge facts case; medieval mind assumed there could correct view facts, and, thereof declared erroneously, punished perjury. T. Plucknett, Concise Common 131 1956); 297. Given perjury, surprising. explanation consent. Indeed, '(t)he word (consensus) carried idea concordia M. Clarke, Medieval Representation Consent 251 (1964). Even Parliaments deemed insufficient bind individual decision, see 335—336; Lancastrian Tudor Studies 161, 169 (R. Seton-Watson 1924); preferred. 15th decision-making Parliament avowedly majoritarian, K. Pickthorn, Early Government: VII, p. 93 (1967), ideal increasingly difficult attain. 266—267. For America similar concern binding taken unanimously, Zuckerman, Social Context Democracy Massachusetts, Wm. Mary Q. (3d ser.) 523, 526—527, 540—544 Blackstone, *375—376. Four 18th-century constitutions N.C.Const. 1776, IX; Pa.Const. Vt.Const. 1786, XI; Va.Const. 8; according law, Md.Const. III, remain 'inviolate,' Ga.Const. 1777, LXI; Ky.Const. 1792, XII, 6; N.Y.Const. XLI; Tenn.Const. 1796, XI, 'confirmed,' N.J.Const. XXII; 'as heretofore.' Del.Const. 4; S.C.Const. 1790, IX, 6. Apthorp Backus, Kirby 407, 416—417 (Conn. 1788); Grinnell Phillips, Mass. 530, 542 (1805). invariable 17th-century America, Carolinas, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, 98 45, 1904, explicit provisions, North Carolina apparent change unquestioning acceptance text writers St. George Tucker indicate century, Americans familiar details adopted own colonial systems. generally Murrin, Legal Transformation: Bench Bar Eighteenth-Century Colonial America: Essays Politics Development 415 (S. Katz 1971). F. Heller, 13—21 (1951). 1055 (1948); 449, 597 (1900) (dictum). Springville Thomas, 166 707, 717, 41 1172 (1897); American Publishing Co. Fisher, 464, 618, 1079 (1897). complete statistical study behavior unanimous, probability acquittal hang about great it.' H. Kalven Zeisel, 461 (1966). C. McCormick, Evidence 321 (1954); Wigmore, 2497 1940); May, Some Rules Reasonable Doubt Civil Am.L.Rev. 642, 651—660 (1876). (See 69 U.S.L.Rev. 169, 172 (1935).) According crystalized Rex Finny, high treason Dublin 1798 reported MacNally, Pleas Crown *4 (1811). Confusion persisted 19th applied civil see, Ropps Barker, (4 Pick.) 239, 242 (1826); ceased Ellis Buzzell, 60 Me. 209 (1872), courts began applying modern form Commonwealth Webster, 59 (5 Cush.) 320 (1850). supra. 369—371, 1637—1638 (POWELL, J., judgment).

Category: 0