Document: 399 U.S. 78 90 S.Ct. 1893 26 L.Ed.2d 446 Johnny WILLIAMS, Petitioner,v.State of FLORIDA. No. 927. Argued March 4, 1970. Decided June 22, Richard Kanner, Miami, Fla., for petitioner. Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion Court. 1 Prior to his trial robbery in State Florida, petitioner filed a 'Motion Protective Order,' seeking be excused from requirements Rule 1.200 Florida Rules Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. That rule requires defendant, on written demand prosecuting attorney, give notice advance if defendant intends claim an alibi, and furnish attorney with information as place where he claims have been names addresses alibi witnesses use.1 In motion openly declared intent but objected further disclosure ground that 'compels Defendant criminal case witness against himself' violation Fifth Fourteenth Amendment rights.2 The was denied. Petitioner also pretrial impanel 12-man jury instead sixman provided by law all capital cases.3 too convicted charged sentenced life imprisonment.4 District Court Appeal affirmed, rejecting petitioner's Sixth rights had violated. We granted certiorari.5 396 955, 439, 24 420 (1969). 2 * Florida's notice-of-alibi is essence requirement submit limited form discovery whenever rely at defense alibi. exchange defendant's proposes use establish defense, turn required notify any it offer rebuttal defense. Both sides are under continuing duty promptly disclose additional bearing they become available. threatened sanction failure comply exclusion evidence—except own testimony—or, State, State's evidence offered alibi.6 3 this case, following denial Motion Order, complied gave name address one Mary Scotty. Mrs. Scotty summoned office Attorney morning trial, she testimony. At itself, Scotty, petitioner, wife testified three them Scotty's apartment during time robbery. On two occasions cross-examination confronted her earlier deposition which given dates times some respects did not correspond trial. adhered story, insisting mistaken testimony.7 testimony officers investigating who claimed asked him directions afternoon question when wife.8 4 need linger over suggestion permitted deprived 'due process' or 'fair trial.' provides liberal State,9 itself carefully hedged reciprocal duties requiring state defendant. Given ease can fabricated, interest protecting eleventh-hour both obvious legitimate. Reflecting interest, provisions, dating least 1927,10 now existence substantial number States.11 adversary system hardly end itself; yet poker game players enjoy absolute right always conceal their cards until played.12 find ample room system, far concerned, instant rule, designed enhance search truth insuring opportunity investigate certain facts crucial determination guilt innocence. 5 Petitioner's major contention 'compelled contrary commands Amendments because thus useful convicting him. No statement introduced trial; armed knowledge witness, able take Also, reveal elements interfered wait after presented its decide how defend it. conclude, however, has apparently every other court considered issue,13 privilege self-incrimination violated witnesses.14 6 frequently forced testify himself call effort reduce risk conviction. When presents witnesses, must identity may prove incriminating leads evidence. faces such dilemma demanding choice between complete silence presenting never thought invasion compelled self-incrimination. pressures generated severe do vitiate present it, even though attempted ends catastrophe However 'testimonial' 'incriminating' proves be, cannot 'compelled' within meaning Amendments. 7 Very similar constraints operate naming witnesses. Nothing prevents abandoning defense; these matters left unfettered choice.15 made, bear decision same nature those would induce trial: force historical fact beyond control strength built facts. Response kind pressure offering transgressing 8 before us, no way affected added legitimate leading course action. most, only accelerate timing disclosure, forcing divulge date beginning planned entitles matter constitutional await announcing more than jury's verdict case-in-chief deciding whether stand himself. 9 concedes absent Constitution raise bar court's granting continuance surprise soon called.16 Nor there problems if, continuance, precisely what here prior But so utilizing permissible Amendments, then surely result accomplished through discovery, here, avoiding necessity disrupted trial.17 decline hold compulsory guarantees II 10 Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 145, 88 1444, 20 491 (1968), we held cases were tried federal court—would come Amendment's guarantee. July 3, 1968, clearly falls scope holding. See Baldwin New York, 66, 1886, N.E.2d 437; DeStefano Woods, 392 631, 2093, 1308 (1968). guarantee 'jury' necessarily exactly 12 persons, rather lesser number—in six. panel necessary ingredient 'trial jury,' respondent's refusal six members violate applied States Fourteenth. 11 occasion supra, review briefly oft-told history development cases.18 revealed long tradition attaching great importance concept relying body one's peers determine innocence safeguard arbitrary enforcement. history, affords little insight into considerations gradually led size generally fixed 12.19 Some suggested upon simply presentment hundred, petit developed.20 Other, less circular fanciful reasons given, 'but brought forward fixed,'21 rest mystical superstitious insights significance '12.' Lord Coke's explanation 'number twelve much respected holy writ, apostles, stones, tribes, etc.,'22 typical.23 short, while sometime 14th century common came 12,24 particular feature appears accident, unrelated purposes rise first place.25 us accidental immutably codified our Constitution. This Court's decisions assumed affirmative answer question. construing Thompson Utah, 170 343, 18 620, 42 L.Ed. 1061 (1898). There crime committed Territory Utah. A new granted, Utah admitted State. proceeded Utah's Constitution, providing eight members. reversed resulting conviction, holding provision ex post facto reaching conclusion, announced applicable Territory, referred 'constituted, law, neither nor less.' U.S., 349, S.Ct., 622. Arbuably unnecessary result,26 announcement supported referring Magna Carta,27 quoting passages treatises noted—what already seen—that indeed consist 12. Noticeably discussion essential step argument: namely, existed law—whether incidental institution—was included wherever document 'jury.'28 Subsequent reaffirmed often dictum29 usually issue all—solely common-law consisted 12.30 Patton United States, 281 276, 288, 50 253, 254, 74 854 (1930);31 Rassmussen 197 516, 519, 25 514, 515, 49 862 (1905); Maxwell Dow, 176 581, 586, 448, 450, 451, 44 597 (1900). 13 While 'the Framers' elusive quarry, relevant casts considerable doubt easy assumption past 1789, preserved Provisions placed Article III's '(t)he Trial Crimes shall Jury; said committed.'32 'very scanty (of provision) records Constitutional Convention'33 sheds light either intended correlation features law.34 Indeed, pending adoption fears expressed failed preserve 'jury vicinage.'35 concern, well concern civil cases, furnished part impetus introducing amendments ultimately resulted provisions Seventh As James Madison House, relating that: 14 'The crimes impartial freeholders vicinage, requisite unanimity challenge, accustomed requisites. *'36 15 passed House substantially form, week debate Senate returned considerably altered.37 actual debates occurred available,38 letter Edmund Pendleton September 14, indicates Senate's objections 'vicinage' version.39 conference committee appointed. reported second 23, remained opposed vicinage requirement, partly view thenpending judiciary bill—which debated Amendments—adequately feature, making freeze Senate,' wrote Madison: 16 'are inflexible opposing definition locality Juries. contend vague strict term; depending limits pleasure county. It proposed insert word Juries, 'with requisites,' leaving construed according judgment professional men. Even could obtained. suppose, also, Judiciary bill will sufficiently quiet called amendment point.'40 17 version finally emerged Committee became Amendment, ensuring accused: speedy public district wherein committed, previously ascertained *.' 19 Gone spelling out 'unanimity,' requisites.' And replaced wording reflected compromise broad narrow definitions term, Congress power creation judicial districts.41 Three significant observed sketch background Constitution's provisions. First, requirement,42 mere reference jury' III interpreted include feature. subsequent indicate, disagreement arose should sense, described above. Second, explicitly tied 'accustomed requisites' eliminated. Such action concededly open 'jury.' plausible one: deletion substantive effect. clear expectation change effected inclusion explicit latter is, anything, plausible. Finally, contemporary legislative indicate wanted leave incorporating existing knew express language Thus, bill, signed President day agreed submitted narrower Amendments.43 'no jury, otherwise re-examined rules law.'44 21 pretend divine imported Framers, First Congress, 1789. usual 12,45 hence, most likely conclusion drawn actually specific face today. absolutely indication equate characteristics jury. suggests, then, violence turning purely inquiry, see function performs relation Measured standard, regarded indispensable component Amendment. 22 purpose noted Duncan, prevent oppression Government. 'Providing accused inestimable corrupt overzealous prosecutor compliant, biased, eccentric judge.' 156, 1451. purpose, obviously lies interposition accuser commonsense group laymen, community participation shared responsibility results group's performance role makes up To sure, probably large enough promote deliberation, free outside attempts intimidation, provide fair possibility obtaining representatives cross-section community. reason think goals meaningful sense achieved numbers six, 12—particularly retained.46 And, certainly reliability factfinder seems size. 23 might gives greater advantage since 'chances' finding juror insist acquittal just easily belong needs acquittal.47 What few experiments occurred—usually area—indicate discernible difference reached different-sized juries.48 currently available theory49 suggests advantageous composed fewer Similarly, theory viewpoints represented randomly selected ought increase increases, practice six-man terms negligible. insure representation distinct voice community, particularly peremptory challenge. exclusions class rolls forbidden, see, e.g., Carter Jury Commission, 320, 329—330, 518, 523, 549 (1970), significantly diminished decreased unrealistic one. began: effect wholly without 'except mystics.' 182, 1466 (Harlan, J., dissenting). read forever codifying real ascribe blind formalism Framers require discover reasoning decisions. mean intimate legislatures good concluding preferable smaller conclusions—reflected system50—are unwise. Legislatures views about relative value larger juries, conclude that, apart primary function, desirable spread collective among group. example, jurors—a implicit recognition means legitimating society's impose death penalty. Our does unrestrained interpretation dictate precise constitute Consistent holding, rights, Affirmed. 27 BLACKMUN took consideration case. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT Fla.Rule Crim.Proc. 1.200: 28 'Upon specifying known place, commission charged, shall, ten days direct, file serve writing intention contain alleged offense and, whom Not five receipt list, (as attorney) discredit cause. attention party filing respective lists rule. If fails copy herein required, exclude proving except stated notice. list provided, rebutting For cause shown waive rule.' 29 Chief BURGER, concurring. 30 I join fully WHITE's benefit important functions disposing appropriate circumstances—a courts, prosecution offices, legal aid defender agencies vastly overworked. receiving will, course, prospective finds reliable unimpeachable doubtless re-examine entire process very lead dismissal charges. obliged why false charges instituted breakdown examination charge. 31 hand, inquiry contrived fabricated accordingly subject impeachment attack. situation counsel found client testimony, seek withdraw try persuade enter plea guilty, possibly discussions disposition 32 justice served processes ecpedited. These consequences enlarged truly move away 'sporting contest' idea justice. BLACK, DOUGLAS joins, concurring dissenting part. 34 today holds can, consistently agree By Brother Harlan, point 'incorporation doctrine,' Bill Rights made standards courts1 somehow 'dilution' protections He asserts desire relieve rigorous bound re-examination modification interpreting courts order simultaneously apply equally Federal Governments avoid undue restrictions States. assertion support today's emphatically 'rejected notion applies 'watered-down, subjective individual Rights." Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 10—11, 84 1489, 1495, 653 (1964). Today's attributable dilute follows solely consequence reach correct each implications early indicating satisfy situations squarely based, my opinion, improper amendment. Had arisen still, view, danger diluting 'shock conscience' test Harlan instead—a depends, majority 'fair' 'decent.' 35 says, prohibition compelling Although involves provision, decision, radical dangerous departure constitutionally guaranteed remain completely silent, assistance 36 core majority's different produced plead retires consider (a defendant's) pre-trial facts.' Ante, 85. plainly wrong based misunderstanding defendants Rights.2 37 faced mind. Before knows be. thing 'strength case'; range possible cases. certainty Therefore appraisal desirability pleading beset guesswork gambling accompanying itself. Any lawyer regardless amount preparation, looks being about. 38 majority, plays inherent uncertainty predicting effectively coerce disclosing used. Under must, tell else threat barred According Court, later changes mind '(n)othing (him) choice.' 84. Thus intentions raising Necessarily lawyers willing loss Clearly created procedure quite operating greater. Contrary assertion, analyzed 'timing,' influenced factors 39 assumes abandon hurting argument I, lightly assume adverse effects decides forgo persons activities. incentive fully, doing Undoubtedly information—information obtained coerced cooperation. B 40 me, engage intellectual gymnastics concerning practical procedure, '(n)o person himself.' words plain meaning, states evidence, crime. Cf. Schmerber California, 384 757, 773, 86 1826, 1837, 908 (1966) (Black, patent destroy me slightly incredible suggest beneficial defendants. encourage actions help them. fear conviction cost inconvenience prosecutions sufficient incentives make want themselves. thinks best so. compulsion decided hurt 41 unfair element surprise, 'poker game' contest,' tactical type Rights. aware awesome investigative prosecutorial powers government limit spelled detail followed trials. said, entitled him, confront cross-examine behalf, All shield power. None convictions easier taken together burden activity rests anything himself, convict Rather absolute, unqualified compel facts, convince resources. Throughout fundamental challenging to: 'Prove it!' sets follow individuals indicated apparent together. constitutionality aspect arises, interpret isolated, provision. procedures, true seen 'Strict construction' look phrase, clause, sentence expect answer. Each definite various meaning. sensitive words, context used, surrounding discerned. 43 silent avoided superficially attractive analogies so-called 'compulsion' put Obviously contemplates something nothing permits add natural participate attempt condemn truth. protect 'freedom' criminally punished unless succeeded admittedly difficult task convincing guilty. Rights, barriers surmount. benefits derived worth 'efficiency' resulted. Their constitutes final subject, set aside 45 surface opens profound traditional safeguards rationale defenses, classification advanced goes permit obtain tactics plans justification affects 'timing' inevitability citation Jones Superior 58 Cal.2d 56, Cal.Rptr. 879, 372 P.2d 919 (1962), ante, 83, n. 13. adopts entirety, rape disclosed impotency. successfully doctors consulted medical reports examinations incapacity. upheld highest California. 'rule' statute California Supreme fairness, justice, efficiency. barrier raised 46 adopted not, Grove, 65 Wash.2d 525, 398 (1965), Washington Jones, murder produce crime, using behalf. inch-by-inch, case-by-case used transform radically assist failing 47 hint brief case—as as, fear, opinion—of ever-recurring 'fairness,' 'decency', short 'best.' Occasionally emerges disguise intellectually satisfying 'distinction' 'analogy' cover wisdom conformity involved prevailed country. Compelling way, including approved today, unknown English un-lamented proceedings Star Chamber courts—the prevent. practically 150 years Nation's adopting procedures although ancestors intelligent solicitous having efficient are. History familiar dangers oppressive determined protection inhabitant They subjected prosecution, freedom restricted Government's ability punish imprison us. Yet spite strong reluctance governments reaches embrace sanctify afforded accept emphatic dissent. 48 MARSHALL, Part opinion. However, believe Williams pass sent prison life, dissent affirmance adhere 149, '(b)ecause American scheme which—were guarantee.' Sixth. 'Once 'fundamental justice' Governments.' Benton Maryland, 395 784, 795, 89 2056, 2063, 707 51 time, (1898), consists 'of differently de novo—much unbroken line precedent going back 70 overruled. arguments IB still sound doctrine. am convinced full text appendix infra, 104. references separately briefs (hereinafter 'App.'). App. 5. Fla.Stat. § 913.10(1) (1967), F.S.A.: 'Twelve men cases.' 82. jurisdiction entertain direct appeal court. id., 92. Apeal had. Fla.Const., Art. V, 4(2), F.S.A.; Fla.App.Rule 2.1a(5)(a), Ansin Thurston, 101 So.2d 808, 810 (1958). 'For shown' 1.200. 58—60. Id., 65—66. 1.220. invoked 8. Epstein, Advance Notice Alibi, 55 J.Crim.L.C. & P.S. 29, addition appear alibi-notice sort another. Ariz.Rule 192 (1956) A.R.S.; Ind.Ann.Stat. §§ 9—1631 1633 (1956); Iowa Code 777.18 (1966); Kan.Stat.Ann. 62—1341 (1964); Mich.Comp.Laws 768.20, 768.21 (1948); Minn.Stat. 630.14 (1967); N.J.Rule 3:5—9 (1958); N.Y.Code 295—l Ohio Rev.Code Ann. 2945.58 (1954); Okla.Stat., Tit. 585 (1969); Pa.Rule 312 (1970); S.D.Comp.Laws 37—5, 23—37—6 77—22—17 (1953); Vt.Stat.Ann., 13, $x 6561, 6562 (1959); Wis.Stat. 955.07 (1961). Wigmore, Evidence 1855b (3d ed. 1940). valid respects; enjoys See, Brennan, Prosecution: Sporting Event Quest Truth?, 196o Wash.U.L.Q. 279, 292. E.g., Stump, 254 1181, 119 N.W.2d 210, cert. denied, 375 853, 113, 80 (1963); Baldwin, N.J. 379, 221 A.2d 199, 385 980, 87 527, 442 People Rakiec, 260 App.Div. 452, 457—458, N.Y.S.2d 607, 612—613 (1940); Commonwealth Vecchiolli, 208 Pa.Super. 483, 224 96 (1962); Louisell, Discovery Self-Incrimination: Roger Traynor Confronts Dilemma, 53 Calif.L.Rev. (1965); Traynor, Ground Lost Found Discovery, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 228 Comment, Self-Incrimination Privilege: Barrier Discovery?, 135 76 Harv.L.Rev. 838 (1963). emphasize involve validity sanction, chosen Whether extent enforce comply, excluding relevant, probative issues explore. Brief Amicus Curiae 17—26. penalty exacted here. borne 'fixed' time. opening closing statements unfavorable inference hypothetical totally record. remarks; response finished defect alibinotice general, seriously suggesting compliance freely alibi; objection witness. select longer deviate. suggest, though, serious problems. rel. Simos Burke, Wis.2d 129, 137, 163 177, 181 (1968) ('(i)f discussing defer moment testifying election alternative inconsistent alibis, behind'). Reply 1. argued disclosures protected 151—154, 1448—1450, tracing performed different, 'inquisitory' B. Thayer notes following: 'In inquisition number. Frankish empire told 41, 20, 17, 11, 8, 7, 53, 15, variety numbers. So Normans varied much, 'twelve prevailing grundzahl;' documents show sorts numbers—4, 5, 6, 12, 13—18, 21, 27, 30, on. recognitions Henry II. established number; uniform.' Its Development, 295 (1892); (citations omitted). Thayer, Preliminary Treatise Common Law 85 Professor Scott writes: 'At thirteenth invariable middle fourteenth definitely fixed. Indeed like reverence.' A. Scott, Fundamentals Procedure Actions 75—76 (1922) (footnotes W. Holdsworth, 325 (1927); Wells, Origin Petty Jury, L.Q.Rev. 347, 357 (1911). author traces four stages. stage saw whose charge crime; means, ordeal, battle, wager law. stage, began accused, hence grand third 'combination juries' formed render broaden base local borough, juries adding hundreds, officials coroners knights. 'These combination numbered twenty-four eighty-four jurors, embarrassingly unwieldy, personal lost.' 356. fourth special 'formed selecting jurors several hundred. Therefore, hundred accusation, country', number, whole county guilty not.' 357. Neither authors hazards guess E. Coke, Institutes Laws England *155a (1st Amer. 1812). John Proffatt treatise trials 'quaintly given' Duncombe's Trials per Pais, follows: '(T)his esteemed writ. apostles thrones eternal state, hath appoint temporal. tribes Israel twelve, patriarchs Solomon's twelve.' 112 (1877), G. Duncombe, Pais 92—93 (8th 1766). Attempts trace origins European Continent, Scandinavia. F. Busch, Tactics (1959). Forsyth, (1852); T. Repp, (1832). continental practice, better discovered Proffatt, indiscussing ancient Scandinavian tribunals, comments: throughout Europe, favorite branch polity jurisprudence Gothic nations. singular selection compose bodies, remarkable many Many sought account general custom, religious grounds. One kings Wales, Morgan Gla-Morgan, accredited A.D. 725, calls 'Apostolic Law.' 'For,' he, 'as Christ judge world, human tribunals king wise men." (1877) L.Pike, Crime 122 (1873). connection interesting note oath, jury: 'Hear this, ye Justices! speak ask king, faithfully endeavour. God, Apostles.' (1852). 42. 19. P. Devlin, Heller, 64 (1951); Willoughby, Principles Judicial Administration 503 (1929); Tamm, Five-Man Civil Jury: Proposed Geo.L.J. 120, 128—130 Wiehl, Six Man Gonzaga L.Rev. 35, 38—39 (1968); 19, 89—90; White, Development Tenn.L.Rev. 15—16, statutes Utah—wholly Amendment—ensured 345, 621. resolve, once Constitution; basis formerly accorded territorial hinted at, considered. Carta's 'jury'—a historians dispute, Pollock Maitland, Time Edward p. 173 (2d 1909); Frankfurter Corcoran, Offenses Guaranty 917, 922 (1926) (criticizing reliance 'long scholars exposed error')—it Great Charter authority fixing McKechnie, Carta 134—138, 375—382 Reform 669, 672 (1918). indicates, traced 1215 accepted sine qua non 25, 64. reasoned reduced eight, similarly zero, dispensing altogether. 353, 623, 624. bit 'logic,' resurrected Harlan's 126, 1919, suffers somewhat recognizes get off 'slippery slope' bottom. minimum 'jury,' above minimum. ruling refers (1905), invalid Alaska. concession citation; focus territory all. 515. leap possessed simple Capital Traction Co. Hof, 174 13—14, 580, 585, 873 (1899); Publishing Fisher, 166 464, 468, 618, 619, 1079 (1897). us; whether, 'common law' occur interpretation. 97 44. furnishes illustration willingness assertions trial' almost respect 12-man-jury requirement. discarding 'dictum' dogmatic waived. 293, 256. U.S.Const., III, 2, cl. 3. 969. questions extended Henderson, Background 289, 292—294 (1966), crimes' offenses,' 969, 969 244. M. Farrand, Records Convention 144, 173, 187, 433, 438, 576, 587—588, 601, 628 121 (1937) (indexing Farrand's records). 31—33, 93; Warren, Light Act 49, 105 (1923). Technically, neighborhood, 'vicinage meant neighborhood or, England, Blackstone, Commentaries *350—351. venue, juror-residence associated 'vicinage.' Maryland Brown, F.Supp. 63, (D.C.Md.1969). Virginia Convention, conceded omission deliberate defended 'It yesterday, vicinage. done safety, opposed. happen impracticable Suppose rebellion district, impossible jury? sacred America. deviations England: happened independence, discretion. misfortune departed from, necessary. therefore discretion legislature modify circumstances. satisfactory answer.' 332 Annals Cong. 435 (1789). Journal clause deleted indictment. Journal, Sept. 1st Cong., Sess., 71. restore 'by adoption. 9, 77. principal source Senator Maclay Pennsylvania, unfortunately ill amendments. William 144—151 31—32. plan alternations, strike, salutary articles. large; others, districts extent; County alone. Hence dislike restraint negative clause. Several others fate.' Letter Pendleton, Letters Other Writing (1865). 492—493. 28—34; 118—132. Heller 93. 119; Curtis, Origin, Formation, Adoption (1863). 29: '(T)hat punishable death, offence inconvenience, thence.' 24, Stat. 88. Continental resolved October 1774: 'That colonies especially law.' Journals 69 (C. Ford. 1904) (emphasis added). Northwest Ordinance 1787 inhabitants 'always writs habeas corpus, 1787, II, U.S.C. XXXVIII 5—8, 582, 583, (1899) (concluding sources modified practice). scholar, reception colonies, process: 'was assume. conceptions conditioned by, terminology colonists applying technical ignored denied subsidiary force, consciously principles.' Reinsch, Early Colonies, Select Essays Anglo-American Legal 367, 415 (1907). With particular, institution date, stages 'various modifications.' 412. Connecticut continued agree, 386, regret unable retain 405, Pennsylvania verdicts employed seven, 398, Carolinas discontinued Thorpe, Constitutions 2781 (1909) (Art. 69, 'Fundamental Carolina'). 21. Philadelphia Va.Const. 1776, 3813 (1909), subsequently instance involving South Carolina refused declare institution, immune legislature. Starling, Rich. 134 (S.C.Ct. Errors 1867). affirmed question, specifically empowering inferior courts. remains felony imprisonment year imposed. La.Const., 41; La.Crim.Proc.Code Ann., 779 (Supp.1969); S.C.Const., 18, 25; 22; S.C.Code 15—618, 15—612 Tex.Const., 10, 15; Vernon's Ann.St.; Tex.Code Crim.Proc., Arts. 4.07, 37.02 Tex.Pen.Code, 1148 (1961); Const., 12; 46—5 (1953). addition, nine presently offenses carrying maximum penalties year's imprisonment. Appellee A13—A15, 437 (collecting statutory provisions). Mass.L.Q. (1932) (noting 'right cases). 'poll practice,' 122, 136—137, 1917, 1925, former, unlike latter, device Government heavier proof. Hibdon 204 F.2d 834, (C.A.6th Cir. 1953); 139. cf. Waiver Unanimity—Some Doubts About Reasonable Doubt, U.Chi.L.Rev. 441—443 (1954). Bar Association Project Standards Justice, 42—45 (Approved Draft 1968). true, 'hung minimal unconvicted prospect eventually dropped 'hang.' 100-man undoubtedly favorable comparison odds continually 'hanging' seem slight, numerical needed unlikely inure perceptibly side. 40—41; 134—136; Cronin, Six-Member Juries Courts, Boston B.J. Tried Massachusetts J.Am.Jud.Soc. 136 Jersey Experiments Six-Man Bull. Section Jud.Admin. ABA (May 1966); Phillips, Cases, Conn.B.J. 354 (1956). Studies operative contributing small deliberation decisionmaking minority ballot proportional aligned H. Kalven Zeisel, 462—463, 488—489 C. Hawkins, Interaction Coalition Realignments Consensus-Seeking Groups: Study Experimental Deliberations 146, Aug. 1960 (unpublished thesis Library Congress); Asch, Effects Group Pressure Upon Modification Distortion Judgments, Readings Social Psychology (G. Swanson, Newcomb Hartley et al., eds., 1952). Note, Instructing Deadlocked Yale L.J. 100, 108 (and authorities cited), 110—111 initially met proof escape ultimate arguably escapes persuading half jury; random reduction, limits, affect outcome. Joiner, 31, 83 (1962) deliberative six- jury). Fed.Rule 23(b) ('(j)uries 12'). cited re Winship, 397 358, 382 1068, 1082, 368 (1970) stated, Adamson 46, 68, 67 1672, 1683, 91 1903 (1947) (dissenting opinion). Government, Rights—whether arising one—it adopted. approach necessary, application original governing

Category: 0