Document: 400 U.S. 505 91 S.Ct. 490 27 L.Ed.2d 571 James Edmund GROPPI, Appellant,v.State of WISCONSIN. No. 26. Argued Dec. 7, 1970. Decided Jan. 25, 1971. Syllabus State law that categorically prevents a change venue for jury trial in criminal case, regardless the extent local prejudice against defendant, solely on ground crime with which he is charged misdemeanor held violative right to by an impartial guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 507—512. 41 Wis.2d 312, 164 N.W.2d 266, vacated and remanded. Elizabeth B. DuBois, New York City, appellant. Sverre O. Tinglum, Madison, Wis., appellee. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 On August 31, 1967, during period civil disturbances Milwaukee, Wisconsin, appellant, Romain Catholic priest, was arrested city charge resisting arrest. Under Wisconsin offense misdemeanor, punishable fine not more than $500 or imprisonment county jail one year, both.1 After series continuances, appellant brought before Milwaukee County court February 8, 1968. The first morning occupied qualifying jurors, course t exhausted all his peremptory challenges.2 then proceeded, at its conclusion convicted as charged. 2 Prior trial, counsel filed motion from 'to where community this defendant does exist can be had.' asked take judicial notice 'the massive coverage news media activities defendant,' or, alternative, permitted offer proof nature thereof, effect upon trial.' judge denied motion, making clear ruling based exclusively view did permit cases.3 3 appeal, Supreme Court affirmed conviction. 266. It had been correct understanding statute foreclosed possibility prosecution.4 further state constitutionally valid, pointing out 'it would extremely unusual whole prejudge guilt any person misdemeanor.' Wis.2d, 317, N.W.2d, 268. also noted prosecution has ask continuances challenge prospective jurors voir dire, if 'these measures are still sufficient provide jury, verdict set aside after denial fair 321, 270. Two members dissented, believing absolutely forbid prosecution, contain such prohibition it invalid. 325, 272. 4 This appeal followed, we probable jurisdiction. 398 957, 90 2163, 26 541. As case reaches us must, course, accept construction put statute. E.g., Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents University, 360 684, 688, 79 1362, 1365, 1512. question us, therefore, goes constitutionality sole him labeled misdemeanor.5 We hold answered correctly dissenting justices Wisconsin.6 5 issue whether Amendment requires accord faced here.7 concerns, rather, commands, when what purported accord.8 occasion consider precise almost 10 years ago Irvin Dowd, 366 717, 81 1639, 6 751. There found Indiana conviction could stand because infected commenced. What said wholly relevant here: 'In essence, guarantees criminally accused panel impartial, 'indifferent' jurors. failure hearing violates even minimal standards due process. In re Oliver, 333 257, 68 499, 92 L.Ed. 682; Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 47 437, 71 749. 'A tribunal basic requirement process.' Murchison, 349 133, 136, 75 623, 625, 99 942. ultimate analysis, only strip man liberty life. language Lord Coke, juror must 'indifferent stands unsworne.' Co.Litt. 155b. His evidence developed trial. Cf. Thompson City Louisville, 362 199, 80 624, 654. true, heinousness charged, apparent offender station life occupies. so written into our early 1807 Chief Marshall Burr's Trial 416 * *.' U.S., 722, S.Ct., 1642. 7 many ways try assure kind guarantees.9 Sheppard Maxwell, 384 333, 86 1507, 16 600, enumerated procedures available, particularly context threatened poisonous influence prejudicial publicity itself. 357—363, 1519—1522. Here concerned methods available situation where, some other reason, drawn may already permeated hostility toward defendant. problem ancient one. Holmes stated no commonplace when, two generations ago, '(a)ny who sat juries knows that, spite forms, they likely impregnated environing atmosphere.' Frank Mangum, 237 309, 349, 35 582, 595, 59 969 (dissenting opinion). 8 One way meet grant continuance hope time fires will cool. But realized, repeated, work important values implicit constitutional guarantee speedy trial.10 Another method qualification promote, through exercise challenges venire—preemptory cause—the exclusion come. protection, supra, shows, always adequate effectuate guarantee.11 9 least explicitly That Rideau Louisiana, 373 723, 83 1417, 663. process refuse request venue, people Calcasieu Parish exposed repeatedly depth' pretrial there involved. 726, 1419. decided until 1963, but message echoes 200 human experience endless quest administration justice.12 doubtless said, often aroused misdemeanor. under Constitution given opportunity show required case. 11 Accordingly, judgment vacated, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion.13 12 ordered. 13 Vacated 14 BLACKMUN, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring. 15 Although I agree large part reasoning BLACK'S dissent, nevertheless join Court's Father Groppi proceedings. doing, however, feel compelled make following observations: 1. primary issue, seems me, (hereafter defendant) received whether, matter abstract law, entitled 17 2. A fundamental. No disputes that. points footnote opinion, principle English-American jurisprudence evolved prior embodiment treasured concepts Sixth Fifth Fourteenth. 18 3. If defense believes unlikely prejudice, defense, and, proved, should warrant, indeed demand, felony 19 4. Thus, find myself agreement Justices court's Justice, concurring result majority three conclude, 324, 272, proper showing. 20 5. am loss understand how expressed positive permissive terms specifically applicable cases construed embody negative cases, regard fundamental have untainted prejudice. statutory interpretation made unexpected raises otherwise quite avoidable issue. 21 6. spoken vote, very way. Construction task. And bound decision meaning application 22 7. record leaves much desired. discloses formal customarily made. contains transcript thus anyone else evaluate dire presence, actual member panel. 'motion verdict' although referred prejudice,' words assert actually Neither supported affidavits incorporating claimed reports. 23 8. appears selected expeditiously without difficulty single morning. note conflicting Groppi's behavior point arrest, support jury's either way, is, resist arrest within balance, face regarded showing, however persuasive, command content vacation remand order allow attempt proof. 24 9. stress, three-line final lost reader interested notoriety doing today specific ruling, necessarily mean new Groppi, freedom demonstrate likelihood unfair fails quest, now refuses undertake it, reinstated. fail, falls remitted choice between dismissal charge. 25 10. Finally, doubt rather unimportant admittedly sensitive identity means protests known, approaches circumstances offensive character condemned 600 (1966), 663 (1963), 751 (1961), cited opinion. Nevertheless, unfairness anywhere, shall well large, abhorred, ferreted out, eliminated. Despite unsatisfactory record, alleges. BLACK, dissenting. dissent agree, jury. binding States Ante, 509. Parker Gladden, 385 363, 87 468, 420 (1966); see Adamson California, 332 46, 68, 67 1672, 1683, 1903 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting). 28 suggested, protected ways: granting passions subside; challenging cause simply cannot include venue. wiser implement provision, my view, require it. usual devices protection insufficient, 29 suggests controls disposition extensive provided changes ensuring See La.Rev.Stat. § 15:293 (1950). chosen implementing cases. So long protect infirmity Nor compel majority's result. second granted despite seemingly change. However, carefully pointed previously statute's literal wording foreclose 721, 1641, citing ex rel. Gannon Porter Circuit Court, 239 Ind. 637, 159 N.E.2d 713 (1959). 30 impossible provides exercised holding raise claim accordance procedure. 270 (1969). Of difficult, small county, population saturated group. especially difficult million. However be, bring forth tried impartial. 'Whoever knowingly resists obstructs officer while act official capacity lawful authority, fined imprisoned year both.' Wis.Stat. 946.41(1) (1967). Apparently court: 'So, denied; being Statutes. No, I'm denying felony. Statute matter.' appellant's 956.03(3) (1967), provided: 'If files affidavit action (any had). Only subsection.' 971.22, effective July 1, 1970, permits Wis.Laws 1969, c. 255, p. 650. reject suggestion position attack insufficient showing alternative 'offer proof' him. entirety, foreclosing produce prejudiced community. was, consistent powerless might Accord, Pamplin Mason, 364 F.2d (CA5); Ricco Biggs, 198 Or. 413, 255 P.2d 1055. affirmatively Baldwin York, 399 66, 1886, 437. grants Murphy Voss, 34 501, 505, 149 597; Sauk District Attorney Gollmar, 32 406, 410, 145 670, 672. '(i)n prosecutions, enjoy (Emphasis added.) Klopfer North Carolina, 386 213, 988, 1; Smith Hooey, 393 374, 89 575, 607; Dickey Florida, 30, 1564, 26, id., 39, 1569, Brennan, generally Broeder, Voir Dire Examinations: An Empirical Study, 38 S.Cal.L.Rev. 503 (1965). Rex Harris, Burr. 1330, 1333, 97 Eng.Rep. 858, 859 (K.B. 1762): 'Notwithstanding locality sorts actions, informations misdemeanors, all, fairly impartially next adjoining county.' (Lord Mansfield.) Crocker Superior 208 Mass. 162, 178—179, 94 N.E. 369, 376—377 (1911): 'This review demonstrates great weight authority supports courts, custom possess jurisdiction like King's Bench Revolution, place justice had. '* inflamed passion, warped awed violence, menaced virulence public manifestly biased influences operating openly insidiously posion prevent action. assured considerations enter minds those decide desire ascertain declare truth according evidence. general ought left do reason conditions society unprejudiced also, e.g., Albee, 61 N.H. 423, 60 Am.Rep. 325 (1881). Whether corrective relief afforded short courts determine instance. Coleman Alabama, 10—11, 1999, 2003—2004, 387.

Category: 0