Document: 518 U.S. 322116 S.Ct. 2163135 L.Ed.2d 590 LEWISv.UNITED STATESCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for Second Circuit. No. 95-6465. Argued April 23, 1996 Decided June 24, Syllabus Petitioner was charged with two counts obstructing mail, each charge carrying a maximum authorized prison sentence six months. He requested jury, but magistrate judge ordered bench trial, explaining that because she would not him more than months' imprisonment, he entitled jury trial. The District affirmed. In affirming, noted Sixth Amendment jury-trial right pertains only those offenses which legislature has penalty over and offense here petty in character, fact petitioner facing imprisonment aggregate did entitle court explained dictum offense's characterization as or serious determined faced, trial judge's self-imposed limitation on sentencing could deprive defendant right. Held: 1. A who is prosecuted single proceeding multiple does have where term exceeds reserved defendants accused extend offenses. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 159. most relevant criterion assess seriousness an legislature's judgment primarily expressed term. An months less presumed petty, unless additional statutory penalties so severe indicate it considered serious. E.g., Blanton North Las Vegas, 489 538, 543. Here, by setting at months, Congress categorized mail petty. offense, therefore faced potential greater change Congress' particular gravity, nor transform into one, apply. Codispoti Pennsylvania, 418 506, 511, Taylor Hayes, 488, distinguished. Pp. 3-8. 2. Because reach question whether may affect P. 8. 65 F. 3d 252, O'Connor, J., delivered opinion Court, Rehnquist, C. Scalia, Souter, Thomas, JJ., joined. Kennedy, filed concurring judgment, Breyer, Stevens, dissenting opinion, Ginsburg, NOTICE: This subject formal revision before publication preliminary print Reports. Readers are notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme States, Washington, D.C. 20543, any typographical other errors, order corrections be made goes press. Justice O'Connor Court. 1 case presents constitutional We also asked decide otherwise denied presiding pretrial commitment imposed will exceed 2 conclude no exists Amendment's guarantee offenses, its scope faces excess charged. we do second question. I. 3 Ray Lewis handler Postal Service. One day, postal inspectors saw open several pieces pocket contents. next routed "test" containing marked currency, through petitioner's station. After seeing remove arrested him. violation 18 Section(s) 1701. Each count carried granted Government's motion She not, under circumstances, 4 sought review denial appealed, Circuit 252 (1995). is, imprisonment. then addressed nevertheless concluded that, determination proper focus regarding character indicated authorized, length faced. Id., 254-255. 5 255-256. 6 certiorari, 516 ___ (1996), resolve conflict Courts such can eliminated See Coppins, 953 2d 86 (CA4 1991); Bencheck, 926 1512 (CA10 Rife Godbehere, 814 563 (CA9 1987). II. 7 guarantees "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, shall enjoy speedy public impartial State district wherein crime been committed . ." It well-established Amendment, like common law, reserves this prosecutions "there category crimes provision." 159 (1968). 8 To determine properly characterized "petty," courts one time looked nature triable law. Such determinations became difficult, many lack common-law antecedents. 541, n. (1989). Therefore, recently, instead "objective indications society regards offense." Frank 395 147, 148 (1969); accord, Columbia Clawans, 300 617, 628 (1937). Now, consider attached offense. reveals about severity. "The judiciary should substitute legislature, far better equipped perform task Blanton, S., 541 (internal quotation marks omitted). evaluating place primary emphasis authorized. While probation fine infringe defendant's freedom, deprivation liberty makes best indicator "petty" "serious." 542. 543; 512 (1974). 9 obstruction imprisonment-a presumptively places category. face tried aggregated 12 10 argues prosecution, requires basis determining required. Although imprisonment; and, course, if had must look existence right, contends, 11 disagree. crimes. As set forth above, looking revise legislative gravity note there precedent law provided See, e.g., Queen Matthews, Mod. 26, 88 Eng. Rep. 609 (Q. B. 1712); King Swallow, T. R. 285, 101 1392 (K. 1799). insists whenever period exceeding proposition cites our establishing six-months' presumptive cut-off sure, cases line between "serious" purposes, severity appraisal supra, 542-543; Baldwin New York, 399 66, 68-69 (1970) (plurality). But now settled carries terms indicates view "petty." Where poten-tial provides indicatio[n] offense," Frank, 148, indication used required, particularities individual case. manifests virtue alter fact. 13 directs attention support assertion "aggregation renders prosecution purposes." Brief 18. inapposite. There, were convicted single, nonjury charges contempt. unable however, specific situation, specified penalty, use actually measure Codispoti, 511; 149. contrast, need punishment imposed, able discern 14 Furthermore, emphasized special concerns raised contempt context. Contempt "often strikes vulnerable human qualities temperament. Even direct insult frequently represents rejection judicial authority, interference process omitted); see Mayberry 400 455, 465-466 (1971). courtroom disruption, difficulty maintaining detachment necessary fair adjudication; same time, "determines how acts citation cover," "determine[s] guilt innocence absent jury," "impose[s] sentence." 515. concentration power often heated context presented "very likelihood arbitrary action requirement intended avoid alleviate." benefit "`as protection against exercise official power,'" deemed particularly important (quoting Bloom Illinois, 194, 202 (1968)). 15 absence seriousness, coupled unique case, persuaded us imposed. held exceeded By comparison, 488 (1974), similarly involved jurisdiction Contrary Kennedy's argument, post 2-4, 8, stand sweeping outside their narrow context, defendant. 16 Certainly importance evidenced result aggregation charges, acknowledges, even prevail, Government circumvent charging separate informations trying them separately. 17 Constitution's extends That 19 20 ordered. 21 whom Breyer joins, judgment. 22 from outset sentenced his combined outcome, obscure consequence today's unfortunate decision. holds innumerable number years' without long alone punishable prison. holding both doctrinal formulation practical effect incursions Court's history, cannot squared precedents.The crime. Serious crimes, purposes defined include prison; attaches regardless 159-160. doctrine questioned here, define outer limits jury. Our establish further proposition: well 506 (1974); specific, when sentences taken together, itself, 517. 23 juries legislatures nine contempts Since total "eight contempts, singly collectively, thus constituted required." 496. seven three run consecutively-a 39 Pennsylvania argument today. said required rejected claim, saying: 24 "Here seriatim proceeding, consecutively rather concurrently, ruling necessarily extended served beyond allowable years contemptuous acts. obviously times [Codispoti] what equivalent 25 "We find unavailing respondent's contrary [Codispoti's] Notwithstanding salient remains arose judge, proceeding. aggregated, taking account others beginning until immediately preceding expired." 516-517. 26 reasons offers distinguish these convincing. first suggests Codispoti's turned Ante, 6. sentence, nothing whatever Indeed, know open-ended reason Taylor, decided kind received Taken rejects: Sentences Cf. McCarroll, 337 So. 475, 480 (La. 1976) (concluding compelled overrule Monroe Wilhite, 233 535 (La.), cert. denied, 910 (1970), require trial). 27 based "the context." 6-7. indeed cognizant "to maintain integrity process," 513, approved summary conviction contempt, "where necessity circumstances warrants," id., 514. clear empaneling 514-515. went hold, postpones after immediate proceedings concluded, "ordinary rudiments due process" "ordinary" rule penalties, 28 authorizing retroactive consideration receives, holdings confused entitling receives. lines consistent. Crimes community's social ethical judgments Opprobrium actual stigma itself enough J. Proffatt, Trial Jury 149 (1877) (jury "punishment render infamous [or] affix ignominy criminal"). rationale offenses; they convictions carry 29 imposition stigma, serves constrain. recognizes, ought evident, different purpose preventing effecting liberty-ordering substantial time-without persuading belongs there. significant exacted series punished stakes amount prison, interpose himself Government. If rules protect endangered, corresponding 30 binding precedents, my conclusion rests fundamental point, refuses confront: legal system powers State. Among ominous imprison. Blackstone principle described "strong barrier liberties people prerogative crown." W. Blackstone, Commentaries *349-*350. Forsyth, History 426 (1852) ("[I]t difficult conceive security affords violence part crown government acting name crown. No matter ardent wish destroy crush obnoxious opponent, real danger menaces party attacked take refuge fairly indifferently chosen"). recent "reflect[s] profound way enforced justice administered." 155. Providing gives "him inestimable safeguard corrupt overzealous prosecutor compliant, biased, eccentric judge." 156. These considerations present sends years, 31 On limit impose carves up segments apiece. Prosecutors broad discretion framing Ball 470 856, 859 (1985), conduct arrange neat categories. cases, choose prevent obtaining while still punishment. People Estevez, 163 Misc. 839, 847, 622 N. Y. 870, 876 (Crim. Ct. 1995) ("The ways. They good faith seek consolidation B misdemeanors, reduced Class consecutive expose deny trial"). 32 aid position notes, seeming approval, troubling suggestion evade proposed bringing proceedings, Were justify burden I think urgent example needed consolidated. And repeated trials prosecutor's scheme confine jail least certain safeguards result. prosecution's witnesses, theory tested once; opportunities convince merits; quite apart questions included barred collateral estoppel found favor dispositive later trials, Ashe Swenson, 397 436 (1970). Finally, justify, voters, peculiar discretion. short, seeks achieve forbidden expedient pursuing many, constrain holding, easier constraints lock time. 33 significance decision transcends peculations Lewis, twice filched mails. affects repeat violators traffic laws, persons drunkenness, persist breaches peace, wide range eccentrics capable disturbing quiet enjoyment life others. Just alarming threat poses millions agriculture, manufacturing, trade comply minute administrative regulations, less. Violations sorts involve repeated, discrete liability 707 (violation migratory bird treaties, regulations); 216 (penalties Fair Labor Standards Act); 36 CFR 1.3 (1995) National Park Service 261.1b Forest prohibitions); 327.25 Army Corps Engineers water resource development project 43 8351.1-1(b) Bureau Land management regulations Trails System Act 1968). Still, difference year years: 34 errs opposite direction. combine rightly so. societal disapprobation attaching crime, liberty. withdrawing entitled, claims; begin statement independent force clarifies absence. conducting announces bench. 35 Amici say inappropriate judges make kinds decisions just practice, Scott 440 367 (1979), appoint counsel misdemeanor So too, Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 58(a)(2) authorizes apply Rules contemplate being Fed. Crim. Proc. 58(a)(3). Petitioner's proposal enormous already beleaguered increasing dramatic extent trials. There thousands instances minor err side sensible interpretation hold combining mandates possibility longer foreclosed. 37 When put great risk conducted lies heart Amendment. grave injury allowing suffer join 38 Ginsburg dissenting. "in prosecutions." Kennedy persuasively explains, "primary State." majority, relying exclusively designed mind wholly dissimilar circumstance agree exposes sufficiently confer demand ante, 6-8. 40 Unlike believe begins. quarrel established whose alleged misconduct judged measured whole. text supports referring expressly "criminal Nothing prior precedents conflicts view. True, some past (the ones majority relies) referred "offense" "prosecution." (1989); (1969). words effectively interchangeable issue concerned demonstrate aggregation-that deciding offenses-is appropriate. 41 attempts suggesting observation certainly correct point: available yardstick compliance command aspect speak Having follow today unnecessary. Yet reversed remanded, "each contemnor [therefore] trial." 517 (emphasis added).1 42 reads standing defeat promising short sentence. mistaken. proxy demonstrated warrant six-month explicit expression serious-the All strip "[o]pprobrium imposed," (Kennedy, judgment). view, involving possible assuming dishonor associated moment making 44 reverse reason, respectfully dissent. majority's speculation limited 6-7, answered Kennedy. (opinion

Category: 0