Document: 409 U.S. 524 93 S.Ct. 848. 35 L.Ed.2d 46 Gene HAM, Petitioner,v.State of SOUTH CAROLINA. No. 71-5139. Argued Nov. 6, 1972. Decided Jan. 17, 1973. Petitioner, a civil rights worker, claims that the trial resulting in his drug conviction (which was affirmed by South Carolina Supreme Court) not fair because court's refusal to examine jurors on voir dire as possible prejudice arising from fact petitioner is Negro and he wears beard. Held: The make any inquiry racial bias after petitioner's timely request therefor denied violation Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Its inquire particular against beards, it had made inquiries general, constitutional error. Pp. 526—529. 256 S.C. 1, 180 S.E.2d 628, reversed. Jonathan Shapiro, New York City, for petitioner. Timothy G. Quinn, Columbia, S.C., respondent, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion 1 Petitioner convicted court possession marihuana state law.1 He sentenced 18 months' confinement, appeal divided 628 (1971). We granted certiorari limited question whether judge's violated latter's federal rights. 404 1057, 92 744, 30 745 (1972). 2 young, bearded who has lived most life Florence County, Carolina. appears have been well known locally work such activities Southern Christian Leadership Conference Bi-racial Committee City Florence. never previously crime. His basic defense at law enforcement officers were 'out get him' activities, framed charge. 3 Prior examination prospective jurors, counsel requested judge ask four questions relating petitioner.2 first two sought elicit Negroes; third related beards; fourth dealt with pretrial publicity problem. judge, while putting three general bias, prejudice, or partiality are specified statutes,3 declined posed 4 dissenting justices Court thought this Court's decision Aldridge v. United States, 283 308, 51 470, 75 L.Ed. 1054 (1931), binding State. There being tried murder white policeman be asked they entertained prejudice. This reversed judgment an inquiry. Chief Hughes, writing Court, stated 'essential demands fairness' required under circumstances case interrogate veniremen respect upon criminal defendant. Id., 310, S.Ct., 471. 5 relied number holdings throughout country same effect, but expressly grounded requirement. Since one purposes Amendment insure these fairness,' e.g., Lisenba California, 314 219, 236, 62 280, 289, 86 166 (1941), since principal purpose adoption prohibit States invidiously discriminating basis race, Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 81, 21 394 (1873), we think subject permits challenges cause, authorizes conduct potential jurors. State having created statutory framework selection juries, essential fairness requires facts shown record permitted interrogated issue bias. Cf. Groppi Wisconsin, 400 505, 508, 91 490, 492, 27 571 (1971); Bell Burson, 402 535, 541, 1586, 1590, 29 90 6 agree put form, subject, simply do so pains point out, context where its authority within system courts allows good deal closer supervision than does Amendment, 'had broad discretion asked,' U.S., form least broad. In context, either brief, urged would appear sufficient focus attention might entertain. 7 proposed addressed wore While cannot say people beards harbored more case, beginning end about Given traditionally accorded conducting dire, supra, our inability constitutionally distinguish host other similar prejudices, believe when refused question. derives statute firmly established precedent numerous cases which relied, language those adopted reach level violation. 8 Petitioner's final allegedly prejudicial publicity. But before us contains neither newspaper articles nor description television program Because lack material substantiating petitioner, no occasion determine merits dire.4 9 therefor, 10 Judgment 11 DOUGLAS, concurring part part. 12 I concur portion majority's holds compelled into possibility dire. think, however, abuse preclude defendant jurors' hair growth could explored. 13 It unquestioned right neutral impartial jury. Criminal convictions limitations unreasonably infringed exercise right. 1054. Such reversals incidents precluded inquiring both Morford 339 258, 70 586, 94 815 Dennis 162, 519, 734, defendants held prejudices concerning defendants' alleged ties Communist party. 313, 472, 1054, clear aimed disclosing 'prejudices serious character' must allowed. 14 Prejudices involving unquestionably 'serious character.' Nothing indicative importance currently attached populace barrage reaching evidencing attempt segment society officially control plumage another. On student's wear long alone there over 50 reported cases, Olff East Side Union High School District, 1042, 703, 736. addition, surfaced employment-discrimination Roberts General Mills, Inc., 337 F.Supp. 105 (N.D.Ohio); Conard Goolsby, 350 713 (N.D.Miss.) military area, Friedman Froehlke, SSLR 3179 (Mass). 15 invoked mere sight non-conventional deeply felt. Hair symbolic many rebellion traditional disapproval way current power structure handles social problems. Taken affirmative declaration individual's commitment change values, nonconventional may become very real personal threat support status quo. For people, symbolizes undesirable life-style characterized unreliability, dishonesty, moral communal ('communist') tendencies, assumption use. If defendant, especially prosecuted illegal use drugs, allowed even minimal expose can expected will receive trial? outward manifestation apply deep-rooted individual, deny aspect juror's personality him effective means examination. 17 MARSHALL, I, too, also that, record, agree, acted properly totally foreclosing reasonable relevant avenues 19 Long Sixth applicable through see Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 88 1444, 20 491 (1948), 'impartial' jury justice. 'In essence, guarantees criminally accused panel impartial, 'indifferent' failure accord hearing violates standards due process. . Lord Coke, juror 'indifferent stands unsworne.' Co. Litt. 155b. verdict based evidence developed trial. Thompson Louisville, 362 199, 80 624, 654. true, regardless heinousness crime charged, apparent guilt offender station occupies. written early 1807 Mashall Burr's Trial 416 (1807). 'The theory formed impartial.' Reynolds 98 155, 25 244.' Irvin Dowd, 366 717, 722, 81 1639, 1642, 751 (1961) (footnote omitted). See Turner 379 466, 471—473, 85 546, 548—550, 424 (1965); Glasser 315 60, 84—86, 457, 471—472, 680 (1942). 22 suggested impartiality protects only certain classes extends groups population. makes little difference prejudged color skin length hair. event, deprived present detached observers capable rendering verdict. unsurprising, then, invalidated decisions reached juries wide variety different prejudices. See, Witherspoon Illinois, 510, 1770, 776 (1968); supra; (1950). 23 Moreover, carries concomitant take steps designed impartial. A techniques available serve end, 509—511, 492—494, Sheppard Maxwell, 384 333, 357—363, 1507, 1519—1523, 600 (1966), perhaps important challenge. Johnson 406 356, 379, 1620, 32 152 (1972) (opinion Powell, J.); Swain Alabama, 380 202, 209—222, 824, 829—837, 759 (1965). Indeed, Harlan, speaking unanimous challenge 'one secured accused' '(a)ny impaneling prevents embarrasses full, unrestricted condemned.' Pointer 151 396, 408, 410, 414, 38 208 (1894). Lewis 146 370, 376, 136, 138, 36 1011 (1892). 24 Of course, meaning if unaccompanied cause predicated. 221, 836. reason '(p) reservation opportunity prove actual guarantee defendant's jury,' 171—172, 523, 734 (1950), query infringed. (1931). Contrary suggestion, confined prevented asking supra. supra.1 mean suggest propound limitless time devoted preliminary Although interest free strong, countervailing interests expeditious trials avoidance intimidation. These bulk larger uncovering becomes attenuated. refuse irrelevant vexatious.2 Thus, claimed novel character, require showing relevance allowing questions. 26 matters, abused case. attorney wished questions, scant additional minutes time. inquiries, directed inter alia obviously relevant, bearded. afforded show significant prejudiced beards. At minimum, should provided. absolute ban uncover represents proper balance between competing expedition. permitting slightly extensive burden administration But, Hughes argued 40 years ago, 'it far injurious permit persons entertaining disqualifying disqualification barred. No surer devised bring processes justice disrepute.' 315, 473. 28 therefore hold set out above, protected question, some Code § 32—1506 (1962). following: '1. Would you fairly try disregarding race? '2. You negroes? Against black people? influenced term 'black'? '3. disregard beard deciding case? '4. Did watch local problem few days ago appeared time? Have heard show? read recent effect bad? solely presented courtroom? prosecution's witness, police officer, publicly spoken TV drugs?' 38—202 all were, substance, expressed innocence Ham? Are conscious him? Can give trial?' indicates brief colloquy former apparently offered accounts editorial propounded; responded did consider items submitted prejudicial. Carolina, discussing claim entitled venue, '(t)he clippings name refer trial.' itself, majority heavily relies. pointed existence mind upheld races relation religious decline subject.

Category: 0